Dexus: As it stands, there is no content at all in the entire article not sourced to the company's own webpage.  How did this get through?  jp × g 23:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Companies listed on a stock exchange are often notable, not because of the listing, but because the things they did on the way to getting listed add up to notability.  That may be the case here.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 23:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as it stands, but honestly, JPxG , I'm not a fan of nominating something for deletion and then stripping out content.  If it is clearly badly sourced content, as is the case here, then the article will be deleted on its merits.  I would have just tagged everything as needing citations.  BD2412 T 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BD2412 : I think you are right; I'll just revert to what it was before, and everyone here can see what I am talking about.  I hadn't originally intended to nominate for deletion, it was a little bit after I got through it that I realized "hey, there's nothing here!" jp × g 00:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Performing a search, the only hits I got were from their website and their LinkedIn.  Fails WP:NCORP .  TarnishedPath talk 01:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Keep Changing my vote after it appears that a number of WP:RS have been added in.  TarnishedPath talk 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment As the person who started the article, I take offence at the suggestion that I wrote something that was "vanispamcrutisement".  Assume good faith!  .  At the time I wrote the stub (2015), Dexus was redlinked in a number of articles about buildings (I think it was on a buying spree after a major capital raising) and was in the S&P/ASX 50 and most companies in that list had Wikipedia articles (which could be a notability critieria -- I don't think we have one for Australian companies).  The current state of the article appears to be the work of a 2023 SPA .  Personally I don't care about Dexus at all or its article that much either (although it is rather irritating to see the same redlink in a number of articles).  Although it's not currently in the ASX-50, Dexus is in the ASX-200 (and most companies in that list do have Wikipedia articles).  The Dexus article appears to be linked in about 20+ articles about buildings (presumably as its owner at some point in time) and various other organic links  (i.e. excluding its transclusion in the ASX-200 navbox which otherwise inflates the numbers considerably).   I am surprised by the comment that a search doesn't reveal anything but their own website and Linkedin (time for a new search engine?!), as it appears in the mainstream news all the time according to my Google search [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] etc.  Personally I would just roll the article back to a point where it is more acceptable (or at least less unacceptable).  Kerry Raymond ( talk ) 03:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Kerry Raymond : Regardless of what it was when first written, by this diff it had fallen from the light of God.  I mean, it really says: We believe that the strength and quality of our relationships will always be central to our success and are deeply connected to our purpose: Unlock potential, create tomorrow.  We directly and indirectly own $17.4 billion of office, industrial, healthcare, retail and infrastructure assets and investments.  We manage a further $43.6 billion of investments in our funds management business (pro forma post final completion of the AMP Capital acquisition) which provides third party capital with exposure to quality sector specific and diversified real asset products.  The funds within this business have a strong track record of delivering performance and benefit from Dexus’s capabilities.  I don't mean to insult your character — I refer here only to the revision which referred to the company as "we".  jp × g 03:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't disagree that the current content is not acceptable, but that is not a rationale to delete the article, If it's a notability issue, delete the article.  If it's a content issue, fix the content (roll back is simplest probably).  Kerry ( talk ) 03:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm having trouble finding "clean" revisions; it's never had any references that weren't to the company's website, and e.g. this rev in 2016 seems like obvious UPE ("Updated in line with Latest profile", by a user whose only two edits were to that article).  There are other SPAs here too, like Crowuss -- some people have said there are references somewhere else online, so if decent citations are tracked down and added I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. jp × g 03:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . Dexus is a major Australian property business listed on the ASX200 and was previously in the ASX50. WP:LISTED tells us that there's likely to be significant coverage of such a company as this. Investment research reports will have been written but only available for a price. It will have coverage in the financial press, maybe behind a paywall. The article obviously needs stripping back to remove the fluff. User Kerry has identified sources that need to be evaluated against WP:ORGCRIT . The only one in the list that I think might count towards notability is the last one. Articles based on company press releases and interviews with company employees don't count as they're not independent, and share price data is routine. This source may help with notability [31] if the editorial content is deemed sufficient beyond the interview quotes. The material in the company's history page [32] could form part of an expanded article if rewritten from reports in independent, reliable sources. The company's property assets page includes several notable buildings with Wikipedia articles. Rupples ( talk ) 03:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that Dexus is referenced in articles on Google Scholar search. Rupples ( talk ) 04:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As expected, there's plenty of coverage in The Australian newspaper, the text of which can be found via a search in the Wikipedia Library. Rupples ( talk ) 14:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am fine seeing this relisted pending improvements that might change my position. BD2412 T 00:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: discussion still seems to be ongoing here Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , overly promotional text has been edited out and replaced with text more in keeping with other property company articles. Verloues ( talk ) 12:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC) — Verloues ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 10:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : While a bunch of additional citations have been added, many of them are to questionably reliable sources: the first four are to Dexus itself, five is a corporate press release, six isn't linked so who knows. Seven is to an industry website, which has republished it from here (note that this is in their "Listings" category).  Eight and nine (MinterEllison and Westfield Corporation) are also corporate press releases by companies that did dealings with Dexus. jp × g 23:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep $7+ billion market capitalisation, mutltiyear RS coverage available from business/finance press in Australia (eg Dexus CEO Darren Steinberg to step down , Mirvac, Dexus swing to losses on empty offices , Walker Corp, Dexus take out top awards , Dexus exits US and buys up in Sydney } easy pass of WP:NCORP , WP:NEXIST . Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 23:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, or maybe redirect to A-REIT (i.e. Australian real estate investment trust ).  Look, the volume of mentions of Dexus in press is massive, of the ones that have it, they pump out a dozen every month or so: there's a thousand in SMH , a couple of thousand in The Australian and AFR .  Fewer in the ABC but, if we have one or two "in-depth" articles from the others that more than meets "multiple"... but in-depth is the problem here.  I went through a few pages of results for AFR and The Australian , and they were pretty much all some variant of "Dexus buys X", "Dexus sells Y", "here's some senior Dexus person telling us about the economy", "here's some hirings and firings".  Now, granted, I definitely haven't gone through all of the, what is probably well over ten or twenty thousand mentions, but I don't think there's any reason to believe what I did go through was not, at minimum, a representative sample.  The scholarly sources are probably the only ones that might be suitable for use here, and they mention Dexus very passingly, mostly focusing on A-REITs as a whole.  I cannot see a path to passing ORGCRIT.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 11:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , Dexus is the subject of multiple articles in national newspapers, Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian etc so passes WP:NCORP .  Further demonstrated by being one of the 50th largest companies on the ASX .  Some of the cites that have been incorrectly described above as press releases are actually stock exchange announcements, e.g. from AMP and Westfield , and are highly reliable given that making an incorrect or misleading statement to the ASX is illegal.  Lincosige ( talk ) 01:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think reliability should have been raised as an issue here, that's just confused things.  The key factors are depth ( WP:ORGDEPTH ), and independence ( WP:ORGIND ).  Announcements, and the usual articles based on those announcements, fail those two criteria by such wide margins that it's hard to say what a hypothetical article might cover.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 03:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The general notability guidelines have been met.  https://www.reuters.com/markets/dexus-swings-first-loss-14-years-higher-rates-crunch-property-values-2023-08-16/ and https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/dexus-snaps-up-apn-to-boost-24b-funds-platform-20210511-p57qrn.html show ample coverage in reliable sources about this company.   Many other news articles appeared when I clicked the link at the top of the AFD to search for them.  D r e a m Focus 04:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dream Focus : I did say earlier I would withdraw the nomination if sources were found and notability established.  I did not have a lot of faith, due to nearly the entire history of the article being UPEs, and the sources thitherto being commensurately weak.  But these Reuters and SMH sources you have found really do seem to put us over the threshold.  I admit I have not been paying close attention to this page due to being otherwise occupied, but I dare say you picked a rather roundabout method of pinging me to this discussion.  I will ! vote to keep now.  jp × g 🗯️ 10:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep