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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangenxutang Studio

[edit]

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

I found no notability. The two sentence article says that it is "prestigious" and "renowned", but it doesn't explain why. This could be speedy deleted if those two words were not in the article. SL93 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This likely doesn't matter, but the creator was banned as a sockpuppet. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the creater was a sockpuppet, as he wasn't banned when the article was created (WP:G5). That being said, I support delete, because it doesn't appear to be notable (WP:GNG). ModelUN (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:N. Other than the Wikipedia article itself, there's zero Google News Archive hits and zero Google Books hits. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. A standard Google search provides blog and directory sources, but not reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 31 July 2013 (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.