Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Sources

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Sources[edit]

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

Not a notable company Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. This company is not notable - it has been tagged as such for a very long time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good coverage here. Annual revenue exceeding US$200 million strongly suggests notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A brief mention in one book, and one press release are not sufficient. Annual revenue is not relevant, only substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources actually matters. If it really is such a big company it should have dozens or even hundreds of articles in the business press. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Multiple mentions in that book over several pages, actually. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AfD notice was removed from the article. —rybec 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination the article is much better sourced now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2013 (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.