Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Business

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Essar Group

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

I propose to merge ESSAR Steel India limited into this article, As this is a part of the ESSAR Company only. So it is quite difficult to make a difference in them. AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AshishKaushikAMNSIndia (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AshishKaushikAMNSIndia, from your rationale above, you are suggesting a merge rather than deletion, so AfD seems the wrong forum. Better to close this AfD and let the Merge discussion (whose templates you have placed on the two articles) take its course? AllyD (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WinZO

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

Seems to be written to promote the company. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of socks/SPAs in the article's history suggest the nom is correct in their assessment. The coverage is WP:MILL-like, and I don't think it is sufficient to meet WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 14 September 2021 (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.

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. There is no support for the nominator's argument. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonesta International Hotels

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

The article appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Besides, references cited in the article seems to be sponsored ads. Fails WP:NORG. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has recently become one of the largest hotel chains in the world, with corresponding major press coverage. Its recent fast growth has been the subject of two substantial articles in Forbes, which is one of the top business periodicals in the US. (The articles in Forbes have 1,200 and 1,000 words, devoted entirely to this hotel chain.) It has also been the subject of substantial articles in Skift and Hotel Management, which are major publications in the travel and hotel industries. The nominator keeps changing their critique, first that the article lacks "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention," even though the source articles are indeed independent and give significant coverage. Then that "sources are more commercial than neutral and reliable," though Wikipedia has no policy against commercial sources; many reliable sources, like newspapers and academic publishers, are commercial businesses. Now, that it reads "like an advertisement" and references "seems to be sponsored ads." I see no indication that any of the references is sponsored. The article is entirely factual, without puffery or advertising. It describes the size of the chain, and lists its major brands, which is normal for a Wikipedia article on a company with multiple brands, so that people researching those brands can find their owner and relationships. Some of the brands and individual hotels are notable in their own right and have articles, which also indicates the notability of the large parent company. Editors who dislike the current article's wording can offer improvements, not deletion, when the subject is clearly notable. I have no relationship with the company; I sometimes edit articles about languages, ran into this chain, and sought more information on it. Kim9988 (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be improved, but the company meets with notability guidelines. Lagoyan (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:NCORP based on the sources in the article. The multiple independent RS with in-depth coverage on the company's expansion in 2020 are particularly convincing. The nominator hasn't provided a convincing source analysis to make a valid deletion claim.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2021 (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.

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hifigear

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

Citations brutally fail WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:RS, and the article overall fails WP:NCORP as a result. It's a mix of user-generated, primary, and hyper-local sources. Nothing that meets CORPDEPTH was located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A shop founded in 2003, with one location and a website. Nothing in the article or elsewhere to suggest it could possibly meet WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough to pass WP:NCORP. Suonii180 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:NCORP Masterhatch (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2021 (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.

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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entrespace

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

WP:ADMASQ article promoting a non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search shows a plethora of user generated sources needless to say, WP:ORGDEPTH is definitely absent. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find a Business Wire press release and the usual database profiles. According to some of the profiles, this is a small, recently-started company with 3 employees. There's no claim to notability and none of the sources satisfy WP:NCORP criteria Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and not close to a Wikipedia article at all. If the company ever grows to a size and influence with independent sources, start from scratch. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This reeks of promo and utterly fails notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and above arguments. Peter Ormond 💬 00:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleteinsubstantial RS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft End-of-Life Solutions

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

Non-notable niche business. No assertion, credible or otherwise, of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I’m not seeing anything that would pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Orangemike: @Mccapra: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the work of Eastmain in finding so many sources. I think it’s still pretty borderline in terms of in depth coverage but if I’d managed to find these myself I probably wouldn’t have voted to delete. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough for WP:NCORP and to withdraw the nomination. gidonb (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2021 (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.

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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPath Corporation

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

Promotional article, flagged since 2016. Created by SPA. Was previously deleted at AFD as advertising created by an SPA and worthy of WP:TNT. According to the article talk page, it was recreated by an employee of the company, and not speedily deleted as a recreation against a deletion discussion, as it should have been. The WP:RS sourcing situation on CounterPath has not improved in the past five years - the article as it stands is entirely composed of press releases, and a WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and churnalism based on them - nothing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it'd have to be shown with solid RSes. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. Indeed, the article needs work, and normally I would suggest merging into its parent company. However, its parent does not seem to have an article yet. However, there were public filings in the SEC database, which are reliable albeit not totally independent. This does appear to be a long-lived company at least with real customers etc. so maybe more could be found and a neutral article developed. W Nowicki (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ah yes, it's listed. But we do need at least some RS coverage - there is literally zero present in the article right now, and if the bad sources were culled there'd be literally no article - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing. No prejudice for the article to be undeleted and moved to draft if someone wants to work on it if quality RS is found later.4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (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.

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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Interactive

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

Paid promotional spam article. After I cleared out all the business booster blogs, pay-for-play marketing awards and dead links (which may or may not have ever worked), this is what was left. A WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of independent in-depth coverage in WP:RSes to meet the requirements of WP:CORP or WP:GNG, just a flurry of passing mentions and a little press release churnalism. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews only turns up press releases, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I could find was press releases as well. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly just trying to get hits for his business. Not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails NCORP and is the corporate equivalent of a vanity article BilledMammal (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not met here Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2021 (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.

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traction: Get A Grip On Your Business

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

There is some coverage, but minor mentions. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. scope_creep^Talk 13:35, 20 September 2021 (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.

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. Consensus is that the topic meets WP:GNG, if the standalone article proves unexpandable, it can still be later merged as proposed by two participants. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China Forestry Group Corporation

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

This was moved from drafts to main space with a comment "obviously notable", but I think it's far from it. The article contains no real encyclopaedic content (it was created by a paid editor, clearly at the behest of the company, probably their NZ arm specifically). Half the sources don't work, and the ones that do are primary. And a search finds nothing even approaching sigcov (there are some hits, but they are passing mentions). Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Not notable suggest merge with National Forestry and Grassland Administration. By that I mean add a sentence saying what it is. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the line between the two a little more blurry than that. But it is not my area. Have no thoughts either way on notability with new refs. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. National Forestry and Grassland Administration is a regulator and is not the same as China Forestry Group Corporation, an operating company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs a lot of work, but there is enough information on the internet to suggst that with some work it will easily meet the notability requirement. NealeWellington (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree the article still needs work, but the sources seem to be enough for this to meet our inclusion threshold fairly easily now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information about the NZ forests and the added references are all entirely based on this press release from the topic company. The rest of the references just report on basic company publically-available details. There's not a single reference here that meets NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough news to meet wp:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Keep !voters are being very vague in identifying the precise references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps can one of them post a link or two to which particular references they believe are doing that job? I'm puzzled as to which references because I can see the ones based on the company announcement and the ones which are Primary sources or business listings but I'm not seeing anything else. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge/redirect to National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Passes GNG if not NCORP based on sources in the article. The problem with applying NCORP so strictly to Chinese organizations like this is that NCORP was created to evaluate businesses in Western free markets where there are clear boundaries between corporate for-profit businesses and government institutions, and where there is freedom of the press that generates independent coverage of both businesses and government agencies. That doesn't happen in China where there is no real freedom of the press and the government and business are intimately merged. I would argue that the China Forestry Group Corporation should be treated more like a National government agency (which it essentially is as it manages all of China's forrests and is owned and operated by the government) as opposed to a corporate business (even though it does sell products). When we actually look at the scope of what this agency is responsible for and its impact on the environment across China (i.e. land management concerns, climate change, environmental initiatives, etc.); I can't see how the encyclopedia benefits from deleting the article. The content we have in the article is reasonably well sourced, and ultimately I don't see any benefit to deleting an article on an organization with that amount of responsibility/influence within the government structure of a major world power. 4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2021 (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.

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. Merge discussions can continue outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Song Gao

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

Article about a fairly small shopping mall, sourced largely to promotional materials and others lacking depth and/or independence. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the previous AfD discussion last month, I suggested merging with Breeze Center to create a single article about the chain. That's what zhwiki does. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants from the previous AfD discussion, which was closed as "no consensus": @DGG, Heeheemalu, Cunard, El cid, el campeador, NemesisAT, and Jumpytoo: —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are the sources Heeheemalu (talk · contribs) included in the article:
1. "(Chinese)微風松高開幕估首日1500萬元". Taiwan News.
2. "(Chinese)微風松高開幕　出動86名模特兒". Apple Daily News.
3. "(Chinese)微風松高進駐信義區　吸客漩渦打造共榮圈". www.cardu.com.tw.
4. "(Chinese)藏壽司微風松高店11月26號開幕". www.tw-tw.com.tw.
These sources provide significant coverage of the shopping mail's origins and its tenants and amenities. In addition, this article from the Vogue and this article from Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings's U Lifestyle discuss the mall. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Breeze Song Gao to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t accept that those sources do in fact provide independent and in depth coverage. Taiwan News, Apple Daily News and tw-tw are launch pr for the mall regurgitated as churnalism. The best source here seems to be the cardu.com piece which provides some depth and critical comparison, though what its standing is as a reliable source, I don’t know. I mean what we learn from these sources is mainly that 86 models danced around the the new store for an hour and there’s a special promotion on Kumquat Pickled Raw Salmon to mark the opening. You’d get this kind of nonsense for the opening of every new garden centre. It doesn’t show notability. Mccapra (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Center is about a shopping center in Songshan District, Taipei, Taiwan, while Breeze Song Gao is about a shopping mall in Xinyi District, Taipei, Taiwan. They likely are part of the same chain. I don't think Breeze Song Gao can be merged to Breeze Center without there being undue weight issues. I would be fine with a merge to a single article covering all branches of the chain but as a chain article does not currently exist, I support retention over deletion since the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merger of this and related articles into a single one about a chain of malls has been proposed; relisting to allow discussion of this option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:14, 5 September 2021 (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.

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. References have been added to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Nature at Reads Creek

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

not notable. a nursery selling plants. only ref is a link to the nursery's web site. web search only finds listings for the nursery, no notable references. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 19:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all - I believe I was the original creator of this article, which focused on the public arboretum. I have no interest in the commercial enterprise, but if the public aboretum still exists, I hope that entry will be maintained. Here is my original article:

Jones Arboretum and Botanical Gardens, also known as Jones Arboretum and Natural Gardens, and now called Read's Creek Nursery, is an arboretum and for-profit plant nursery located on Route 14 in Readstown, Wisconsin.

The community arboretum was established in 1973 by Royce Jones, a nuclear engineer, in conjunction with a tree nursery and his own gardens. After his retirement, it now features more than 100 kinds of trees, as well as some 700 non-woody plants, including 400 perennials. The plants are available for sale, or purely for learning and enjoyment.

It seems a shame to me if information about a public arboretum is deleted - but I have no particular interest in a commercial undertaking.

All best wishes, Daderot (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything on the Second Nature site or reviews about it that talk about the arboretum as being anything other than an area to review plants that you can buy. Can anyone find anything that shows that the arboretum still exists as an attraction for visitors? rsjaffe talk 01:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable commercial venture. I visited their website and it appears to be a very nice place, but I was unable to find any coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the article is unreferenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've found a reference after scrolling past some Facebook pages. There might be more out there, but I can't find any at the moment. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I have performed a cleanup as well as added the reference to give the article less of a promotional tone. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved since nomination. I've found additional sources such as News8000, WNA, and another snippet from the La Crosse Tribune.
Comment It appears the owners of this business also own a company called Second Nature By Hand (source), I'm not sure if it is linked to this business other than being owned by the same people. NemesisAT (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added sources show significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2021 (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.