Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion Hub
Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the company had only been mentioned/discussed in all three newspaper articles. All three articles in the The Straits Times, Business Times (Singapore)|The Business Times and Lianhe Zaobao are about them, meaning they pass  in my opinion. This was the main reason I wrote the article on them. Also, using self published or questionable material isn't ideal, but can be used as a reference for lesser points (which is the way I have attempted to reference the article). This was carried out in accordance with . In summary, the article in my opinion passes both  and  due to having lengthy articles published about it, in 3 leading Singaporean newspapers. Finally none of the questionable sources are "exceptional claims" () in my opinion, and are therefore fine to use to expand the article out
— User:Adel4570, 18:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:ABOUTSELF||WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:ABOUTSELF (Wikipedia:Notability)