Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meici

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. Although the article isn't exactly brilliant -sources have been provided thus notability's there, I'm useless with Chinese but sources look legit so meh Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meici[edit]

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

I don't see how this is significant. Adam9007 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets GNG. It's apparently China's largest online retailer for authentic luxury goods.[1] [2], [3] [4] China has very few online retailers, according to this research [5]. Nominator is reminded to look for native-language sources WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately I can't read (much) Chinese, and I don't think I can rely too much on Google Translate. I nominated this because it seems almost like an A7 to me, though I could be wrong. I'm surprised there isn't a Chinese article. Adam9007 (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate can give you the jist enough to know if the subject is being discussed in depth in reliable sources. FYI the Chinese-language Wikipedia is not great; there is a Chinese knockoff of Wikipedia called Baidu Baike that is HUGELY popular (11.5 million articles - the English-language Wikipedia has only 4.5 million or so... though Baidu is a lot less strict than Wikipedia) and Meici has an article there.[6] —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if that link was pointing to the article on Baidu Baike [7] rather than Hudong Baike. But like other language Wikipedias, both online user-generated encyclopedias have different inclusion thresholds so comparing them is about as useful as suggesting that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Especially when neither article includes secondary sources to meet the notability criteria for this encyclopedia. None of the references above refer to the company as "China's largest online retailer for authentic luxury goods" (the first link is dead, the next two mention investments from Sanpower and the last discusses its recent 7th anniversary) and the University of Pennsylvania source does not state that "China has very few online retailers" - the article discusses (in English) the lack of online presence from Chinese high street stores. The first claim is dubious at best, the second (as stated in the UPenn source - Hundreds of other players are tussling for the remainder of the market) is patently wrong. Fuebaey (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have coverage for WP:GNG, with full length features about the web retailer in NetEase and Sina Fuebaey (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a very well known Chinese luxury brand carrier, has a lot of coverage in the Chinese press, not much in the English one so that may be a problem, however, it is certainly a notable company. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everyone keeps stating this is notable. Why don't you provide some evidence? I couldn't find a single independent and reliable source about this. We need extensive coverage! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the editors above (including myself) have clearly provided Chinese references. Generalising that no one has given evidence, when there are links pointing to coverage, seems contradictory. Feel free to refute each individual source (like I have done) if you do not believe that they contribute to our notability criteria. Fuebaey (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2015 (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.