Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinhua Finance Agency

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xinhua Finance Agency[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show the significant impact of this company - only coverage is in press releases, passing mentions, and primary sources. Fails WP:ORG. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is A7 territory: no claim of significance. I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources for this either. I found a Facebook page which as 122 likes which is quite low. Sorry, but I don't see any notability here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails CORP; no in-depth coverage of this company, since most of the hits seem to be passing mentions, the odd quote, and sources affiliated with the subject. Facebook will not cut it. GAB^gab 18:42, 13 August 2016 (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.