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 delete. Per G5: violation of block on User:Mokezhilao. Primefac (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juanpi (company)[edit]

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

Promotional article about company that does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. This should honestly be a speedy for G11, but the tag was removed by Adam9007 because the article cites sources. I don't think that's a valid reason, but nevertheless, I'll bring to AfD. agtx 18:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising sourced by company announcements and listings, none of which establish the substance we consider necessary for an article, let alone both notability and significance, and our essential policies alone allow deletion. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pre-existing article Juanpi APP which is sourced and notable. @SwisterTwister: please try searching 卷皮 in news. @Agtx: would you be willing to help with a merge and scrub? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is just as bad, maybe worse. Its content is almost entirely promotional. Frankly, it should probably be deleted too. agtx 19:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect and cleanup. Both articles do contain blatant advertising at present, but they are both well sourced, between them they contain more than enough encyclopedic material for a good stub, and an app with 100 million subscribers is notable (and if the guidelines can somehow be twisted to suggest otherwise, they badly need some work). Andrewa (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; nothing to salvage here. Renyuren (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote by blocked sock agtx 04:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was created by a sock of a blocked user. agtx 04:09, 22 January 2017 (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.