Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasheng Group

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasheng Group[edit]

Yasheng Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. No reliable sources other than self-published SEC filings or NY Times business listings can be found regarding this company. Unfounded accusations of stock fraud cannot be verified (so the notability of this company as a notorious fraud cannot be upheld). It does not appear that any good information can be provided about this company other than that they exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: KatieBoundary, who has made several comments in this discussion, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a disruptive user who has already been blocked in several accounts, over a period from 2009 onwards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Per Nomination. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the original voice for deleting as not notable. But I have now found a news article that establishes notability - Victorville Daily Press. The article only quotes what Yasheng executives say the company is, and what they are planning, then quotes commentary by he County Board of Supervisors and award winning academicians at CSLB university on the proposal. That does not mean the company is real, or it plans were ever real (especially as there are other news stories that are inconsistent with what is announced in this story - first Yasheng Group buys Yasheng Eco Trade, then vice versa, and meanwhile the land that skyrockets in value in a classic insider trading scheme). Duping a local government body and academicians to comment in the media on announced plans, even for a nonexistent company, establishes notability. The editors above might want to reassess their vote like I just did, in light of this new information. KatieBoundary (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cannot read the article as it is behind a paywall, but based on KatieBounary's comments, the article appears to be about a company proposing to buy property to build a facility, with comments on the proposal from county officials and some academics at CSLB. The fact that these commentators may have been duped appears to be Katie's own addition to the story. If (and I emphasize, if) it turns out that Yasheng is a fraudulent corporation, and the fraud turns out to be a notable crime, then we may be able to recreate an article based on that. As for now, we do not have evidence of that. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WIkidan61 is correct, there needs to be RS to say anything about fraud. It is certain that the geological and fossil claims on their website are impossible and therefore false, but that is OR on my part, and I have no secondary sources. In the meantime, the article can be kept using the careful wording of the news article, "Yasheng says it is this, and says it is that". These people may be shooting themselves by having created enough hoopla to get comments on their in government letters cited in the news. Duping the government in an insider trading real estate scam involving fake companies will likely piss off any honest politician or academician. KatieBoundary (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. No reliable source at all. There is a history of these articles being filled with WP:RS violating material, and its easier to just remove them and write a brief memo to the SEC. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan - This says "Yasheng Group, a California incorporated holding company, was established in 2004". While this says "Yasheng Group, founded over 30 years ago, is a US holding company". 2004 is not 30 years ago. This appears to be the reason for the creation of a Wikipedia article for a company billed as the fourth largest in China, which no one has ever heard of, and with a museum larger than almost any in the world, which fails all searches of architectural reviews. Maybe FBI is more appropriate than SEC, given the news announcements for real estate "purchases" that never occurred, and recorded real estate documents showing the executives were personally buying and selling land in the area, using alias name changes galore. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all your claim is factually wrong about the museum claiming to be one of the largest in the world - it is a tenth of the size of the British Museum and a 15th of that of the Smithsonian. I appreciate the notability concern now, but why did you wish to delete the museum article before that; you made no indication it was notability.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their website press releases in 2009 had the museum as being built to be the biggest museum in the world. They appear to have recently pulled all thos claims off their website, and all the other outrageous claims. KatieBoundary (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources indicate that they exist but give no indication of notability with regard to third party observations. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet, what sources indicate they exist, other than as a bunch of words in a press release, or on paper in an SEC filing? KatieBoundary (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I should spend another minute on this article, but the New York Times entry appeared to be independent rather than a press release. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is the basis for you saying it "appears to be independent"? Who is the author? Which editorial division oversaw that author's source checking? KatieBoundary (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an ounce of notability is shown. Ducknish (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major international company. The date confusion cited in the discussion as evidence that none of it is to be trusted is cleared up if one actually reads the sources, which are, admittedly, quite extensive: the 10K says " We have been producing our premium specialty Agriculture products for over 20 years and some of our entities were founded over 40 years ago, to become the largest agriculture company in North West China. " The 10K is btw certified by a Chinese CPA, apparently one acceptable to the SEC; though accountants in various countries including the US have on occasion helped conceal frauds, this is not something frequent enough to make such statements unreliable. Rejecting sources such as we ordinarily use without evidence on unreliability sometimes indicates some sort of agenda: in this case, possibly that given in comments on a user talk p.and the discussions linked there. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#No_inherited_notability says - "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries". Whether or not a notable company in China really exists, a holding company that holds some interest in it is not notable. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @DGG: If this is such a "major international company" where is the significant independent coverage to verify that? I haven't found any, nor has any other editor. If you have some sources you are aware of, please share. The 10K statement is a start, but if the company is fraudulent, as has been alleged, then the 10K might have misstated facts. Surely a major international company of 15,000 employees should have made some footprint in the online press. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, Wikidan61. And if this is such a "major international company", why are they posting press releases for "mining claims" so insignificant a trailer park resident could afford them, and with pseudo-geology gibberish that no real company geologist would make. KatieBoundary (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:N says "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It fails all three criteria. KatieBoundary (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Copy of 2009 email discussion of this article by Yasheng Group and Yasheng Eco Trade executives and marketers is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.235.139 (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete mainly for failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Verifiability also concerns me. My search for reliable sources got passing mentions that indicate that Yasheng Group is a real company in China and probably not an outright scam. Accusations of stock touting are out there but they lack a depth of coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete mainly for failing WP:CORP. Not a huge fan of corporate articles but the company is real and stable enough to be listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange as SSE:600108. Searchwise, all I could find were financial PRs listed through stock market sites. Its Chinese site [1] is more detailed and up to date (as of yesterday) than its English version, if anyone cares to poke around. Funny Pika! 17:45, 13 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yasheng_Group&oldid=1138713427"