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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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]

• 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]

• 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.