Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qingjian Group

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qingjian Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to establish notability WP:N per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Cited source coverage is trivial. See WP:42. PROD tag removed by creator who asserts notability based on the company's revenue on article's talk page. I don't see revenue listed as criteria for notability though and the sources remain thin at best. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article. While the operative term for the inclusion criteria is notability, I believe the aim of the guidelines is to at the very least include major companies. I pointed out the annual turnover of Qingjian is in the billions of US dollars. That's equivalent in size to a Fortune 500 company. Pausing for one second and thinking common sense, no matter how zealously you wish to delete, how would it be agreeable to other contributors that a company of this size is promptly deleted? Greatvictor999 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May meet WP:CORPDEPTH.[1][2][3][4][5] I suspect that a number of native language sources exist, which have evaded my search methods. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:25, 19 February 2014 (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.