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. JGHowes ^talk 01:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jincheng Group[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Badly made, no references at all (but somehow lasted from 2009 to now?) Creator has also been given a warning about promotional content on another article. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Lack of WP:RS, I also conducted source in Chinese for baidu.com. My opinion is weak and could be convinced given the page seems established for more than a decade and have been contributed by multiple editors. I call for recent editors to join discussion. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No place for unsourced articles on corporations. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, this would belong as a part of the AVIC article. I think the central relevant issue is notability--there seems to be very little mention of Jincheng in media coverage, and when it does appear, it is always with reference to AVIC. I cannot seem to think of a compelling reason that this subsidiary would need a separate article absent some indication of unique or separate corporate goals, branding identity, or political function as a state-owned enterprise, which my (admittedly cursory) research did not find. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Assuming there are few English language sources, it is still a large subsidiary corporation and should not be made to disappear. Deletion is the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment. That should be a last resort. See WP:Before. This may be an example of a language problem, and Wikipedia systemic bias. Indeed, the one reference I just added establishes its international presence and notability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Observation The nominator created this article and then put links to various other articles linking to their company website and that's all they ever did. [1] So they work for this company. Dream Focus 14:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree that producing "half a million motorcycles to 50 countries" means its a wealthy enough company to be notable by reason of common sense. Also they get coverage for this feat. Dream Focus 15:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added large number of sources. Easily found. Meets WP:GNG. WP:Hey. Q.E.D., based on what's already there, nomination violated WP:Before 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sources that were added but do not see how any of them add up to WP:ORGCRIT. Could be an issue of not having English references (and having more in-depth coverage in non-English sources) but unfortunately I don't understand any other languages to check.CNMall41 (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: since being nominated, the article has been expanded and provided with several citations and a couple of images. I think it just about passes WP:CORP and is certainly better than many other corporate articles. ww2censor (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not suitable for a stand-alone article and can be discussed within AVIC. Faizal batliwala (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a clearly notable company with notable sales numbers. The article has come along way from this. To this. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't see the article when it had no references, but offices (or something) in Columbia and Nigeria suggests to me that the article belongs here. Carptrash (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2020 (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.