Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hekka

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 redirect to Asia Innovations Group. Most contributors are not convinced of the notability of this enterprise. Interested editors may want to merge some of the content to the redirect target. Sandstein 12:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hekka[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)

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified.

In my opinion, I am leaning towards Keep because there is one really good reference in the English language and a couple that look OK despite my poor translation skills from Chinese. For example, this article in China Daily appears to meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains in-depth Independent Content about the *company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, that China Daily item is certainly thoroughly in-depth but I wonder how independent it might be, as the "东方网" authorship looks like a company (PR?) rather than a bylined individual, and it has the appearance of being published in association with the Asia Innovations Group parent company (which is also a potential redirect target). AllyD (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD I'm not at all sure that the article was written by a "company" - the name translates to "Eastnet" although the URL ends with "eastday" with a description of "Oriental Finance". It doesn't appear that the attributed author has written any other articles so it is difficult to form an opinion. I've less of a problem with the article itself. For example, the article's voice speaks from personal opinion and experience in may places and draws observations from third party sources without being over-the-top or gushing. Against that, the "About Asia Innovation Group" section is written in a contrasting style (e.g. "hereinafter referred to as" and "is a leading" and "committed to bringin innovative internet products" etc). In my opinion this one doesn't ring any major alarm bells to definitely point to it as PR. Hence my Weak Keep !vote. I'll keep an eye here and see how the discussion progresses but I'll stick with my !vote for now. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Czech and Portuguese language sources carry affiliate marketing URLs of products on the Hekka website; The Italian article links us to another article which carries affiliate program URLs. None of these three websites appear to be reliable sources anyway. The China Daily article is a sparkling press release sourced from eastday.com. Fails WP:NCORP. Surprised by the keep vote above. Maduant (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Asia Innovations Group: An article about an e-comm brand recently introduced by the parent company, with much of the article repeating information about the parent company, its user base, etc. Temporarily setting aside reservations about the independence of the sources, the coverage cited in the article bundles this with others under the parent ("Two of Asia Innovations Group Unlimited’s biggest brands, Uplive and Hekka, collaborated to sponsor this event"); and the piece in China Daily is detailed, but is effectively boosting the firm's supply chain handling and localised market proposition, attributes which seem necessary rather than innovative for any e-comm firm in the field. I am not seeing evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:NCORP or WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2023 (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.