- 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 11:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Beijing Daoxiangcun v. Beijing Sudao Food Industry Co., and Suzhou Daoxiangcun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable sources, unfocused and hard to understand, reads almost like a news story. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC) Because of a strong argument made on my talk page, I withdraw my nomination. PrussianOwl (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2019 (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.