Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Unicom Hong Kong

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. – bradv🍁 05:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China Unicom Hong Kong[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)

A company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Per WP:overlap it can be mentioned in China Unicom, as it is a mobile virtual network operator without an actual bandwidth. Also, the creator just ignore they draft was declined in Draft:China Unicom Hong Kong. (The same user also created Draft:CUniq HK) Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAlthough indeed China Unicom Hong Kong is currently a mobile virtual network operator, it is still the 5th largest operator in Hong Kong with over 800K subscribers, which proves it is notable. Also, MVNO company takes over weighty market share in Hong Kong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.200.166.220 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC) — 42.200.166.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:NCORP needs in-depth coverage from reliable secondary source. There is no in-depth coverage for the HK operation. How many customer is trivia . Matthew hk (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there're coverages from Hong Kong mainstream media, such as [1],[2], [3], and [4]. All are in Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.200.167.212 (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — 42.200.167.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please point out which articles are in-depth enough for WP:NCORP. All of the articles were about the discount, owing wage, incident that unable to provide service and other routine coverage. Matthew hk (talk) 07:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that link 1 can support the coverage of this topic.

COI: I am a China Unicom Hong Kong individual user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.80.57 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC) — 203.160.80.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is just a reporting for a survey conducted by Consumer Council (Hong Kong), comparing the MVNO and MNO. It certainly not a significant coverage about China Unicom's Hong Kong subsidiary/business. Matthew hk (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by WP:COI guideline. as a customer it is not a direct COI violation. But your ip is from China Unicom (Hong Kong), which we can't tell you are customer or COI violation that your are the staff and editing this Afd using your office ip, as they may shared the same pool. Matthew hk (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some off-topic. Apparently the mystery ip hooper, which seems related to 42.200.167.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 42.200.118.60, 42.200.119.104, were all ips from "business customer" of PCCW (HKT Limited), plus 218.250.224.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that from Netvigator brand of PCCW. Are they any COI and/or related to page creator, requires SPI to confirm it is logout edit or not. Matthew hk (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add 42.200.248.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to the suspicious pool. Matthew hk (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And 42.200.181.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Matthew hk (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultra primary references to own companies advertising. Classic fail WP:ORGCRIT. scope_creep^Talk 21:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: Have you informed SPI about your list above? scope_creep^Talk 21:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logout edit are presumably (borderline?) good faith. It just quite obviously it is a case that they hopping ip for (paid? COI?) editing. SPI usually is for socking by multiple registered accounts. Since the page creator the registered account had not been blocked, it has little merit to file SPI as it is not an obvious block evasion. Those "off-topic" rather a better replacement of just tagging with {{spa}} or {{Page creator}}. Matthew hk (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (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.