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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Chinese[edit]

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

I tried cleaning this of promotion, but I cannot do so without removing the entire article. I don;t think they;re notable, either--the reliable references are not about the company. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 22:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to defend my article: Wikipedia is plenty of pages illustrating businesses of middle and small size, in the IT field in particular, that try to distinguish themselves for one detail or another. I carefully verified that the business of this company, as reported in the text and by some of the references, is unique. There are no other cases of partnerships between Chinese authorities (CTA, under CNTA) and privately-held companies for the evaluation of tourism businesses. Moreover, every reference is reliable (which of them is "suspect"?) and, for practical purposes, I didn't add references to articles in Chinese. Last, a good half of the references mention explicitly Welcome Chinese, while the others are a useful tool (to me) to make the context understandable.HeavyRiff (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 August 2014 (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.