Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOOM

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOOM[edit]

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

Unreferenced article offers no evidence the company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of it per WP:CORP, or otherwise meets criteria for notability. Marked as apparently non-notable since December 2007. DGaw (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would be helpful if someone who speaks Chinese could do a detailed search, the company appears to fail WP:CORP, and hence I say delete. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a lacking sufficient indepth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (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.