- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTE. It was tagged for Speedy Deletion but user removed that tag and tried to give it a standard look. Provided Fufeng-Group address is not even a registered one. All other citations are in Chines language. Some vanity claims are made though there is no supporting reference exists. This user has created a good number of such articles on WP that were initially tagged for deletion but he removed those tag. I would like to request moderators to have a look at this issue. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Non-English language sources are acceptable for use on the English language Wikipedia, I believe. The article has four citations. Personally I think this could be kept.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a hard goods brick and mortar business, not some tech or web based business; as such it gets half the benefit of a doubt. It makes food ingredients, and Chinese manufacturers of that sort of thing have attracted considerable media attention over the past year; so even if this particular business has not been the subject of that sort of coverage, as a publicly traded company I think it borderline meets the business notability guideline. As to the Chinese references, all I can do is assume that they back up the article's assertion. The tone is nicely neutral, concrete, and free from goo-goo adspeak. I'm inclined to keep this version, just to serve as a model. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you please try to find some citations for this article. I am already working on another (created by same user). If we can verify this article with English citations, then I think it would be a safer case to keep this article. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Business Week and the Wright Group's investment service seem to at least provide English language confirmation of the existence of this business and the description here of what it does. Though I agree with h i s that English language sources are not necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- English language sources are indeed unnecessary. Nice to have, but not always possible. matt91486 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Business Week and the Wright Group's investment service seem to at least provide English language confirmation of the existence of this business and the description here of what it does. Though I agree with h i s that English language sources are not necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you please try to find some citations for this article. I am already working on another (created by same user). If we can verify this article with English citations, then I think it would be a safer case to keep this article. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even though sources are not required to be in English, sufficient English-language sources are in fact available to sustain an article about this company, given that it is traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (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.