Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mintek
Last year, I sought to redirect this twice to the Department of Mineral Resources (South Africa)|appropriate government ministry, and was reverted by an anon IP.  Whatever the notional importance of this sub-agency might be, ''there has been no evidence of |significant coverage of the subject'', now, or at any time in the twelve years this stub has been dangling around.  To quote from :No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is ... If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists ... "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.Period.  There is no carveout for governmental sub-agencies.  There is no exception based on alleged budget.  The only sources that have come up are primary or namedrops, and neither can be used to support notability.  I believe a redirect remains appropriate, but I'll be happy with a deletion as well.  An article going twelve years without reliable sourcing is ''prima facie'' evidence that no one cares about the subject enough to source it properly, and never will
— [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]]   ., 12:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:ORGSIG (Wikipedia:Notability)