Mark Abernethy

It needs to get to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to determine notability - and that's interpreted strictly. Most of the references don't contribute towards assessing notability because they don't meet that standard - most commonly, that they're published by the company (or at least look like they are, in the case of a couple of the organisational profiles). In short, Wikipedia is interested in what people have to say about them, not what they have to say about themselves - if no one else is interested in the subject, it's generally considered to be not notable.

The only reference that meets that standard and counts toward assessing notability is the SMH article - which is good, but needs quite a bit more of that nature. I'd also just point out that coverage of the company needs to have some depth to it - routine/brief references to the company don't count for much either. I'm not trying to deter you (I'm Australian and I'm familiar with the company, so I'm pretty sure there's enough out there to pass the notability criteria), just trying to explain that there is a deliberately high bar to discourage company spam so you can avoid common pitfalls/someone trying to delete your article down the line. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)