Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group


 * 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 and redirect to Chow Tai Fook. A reasonable argument could be made for closing this as NC, but the assertion of copyright issues makes me take the more conservative path of deleting and redirecting. Had there been no question about the copyright, this probably would have been kept. There is no consensus on notability of this, per-se, so there's nothing preventing somebody from writing a new article, as long as it's appropriately sourced, in-depth, and free of WP:CV. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. WP:ORGCRIT specifically talks about the routine and dependent coverage from outlets like Bloomberg. The Hong Kong and Nikkei listing is ROUTINE,as is DeBeers. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per WP:LISTED though sources are appalling at present. Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep this is a WP:LISTED company on the Hong Kong Exchange as clearly shown on the page - the burden is on the nominator to show that sources don't exist for a multinational with a 90 year history that is a big part of a notable conglomerate Chow Tai Fook. There is a public good in providing coverage for large public companies that employ thousands, have numerous investors, and who your pension fund might be invested in. They are a lot more important and notable than some East German handball player that made it to the Olympics 50 years ago and was never heard from again but is treated as autonotable because sources must exist! WP:LISTED makes the case that almost always do sources exist to ensure notability because the filing requirements, financial press coverage of listed companies, and ongoing reporting requirements for listed companies generate significant coverage. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment...could be merged with Chow Tai Fook whose main content is about the jewellery group. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge - Merge into Chow Tai Fook. - STSC (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep content from jewelry section from Chow Tai Fook can be merged into this article and a main link from Chow Tai Fook to this article, as per other businesses of the conglomerate. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge one good article is better than two poor articles. Currently both Chow Tai Fook and Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group aren't great in terms of coverage. Merging the content from the two articles into one about the parent company seems the best strategy here.FelixFLB (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG when considering Chinese-language sources such as  . feminist (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with a merge closure noting that a separate article can be re-created if of sufficient length and depth. feminist (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Chow Tai Fook. For notability, it may borderline passing GNG if someone seriously research the topic in news archive (as it was one of the notable jewellery store chain in Hong Kong, as well as a notable brand in whole China), but may or may not pass Notability (organizations and companies). The current material are borderline speedy G11 too. Matthew hk (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As a note, the article was moved out from draftspace at lease twice and move back to draft namespace at least once, it was also nominated for G11 already and contested. Content by and  were hidden due to copyvio (and it looks likes a paid editor). The current state of the article certainly worth to merge. Matthew hk (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Second note. As Chow Tai Fook (the conglomerate that start as jewellery retailer) and Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group (the forked out listed company) are closely related, it is not wise to use hatnote for direct people to which articles they want. Also the old content of Chow Tai Fook was entirely contain the history of the conglomerate as jewellery retailer only, and missing those content as investment holding company. Creating a parallel article Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group and then deleting jewellery content from Chow Tai Fook seems bad. Matthew hk (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Remember that we need to vote on the notability of a very old very large public company not on the current state of the article. G11 applies to truly promotional pages, not every page that deals with a business, as some editors seem to think. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group is new, 2011 established listed company. The very old origins and the jewellery store was covered in article title Chow Tai Fook until COI/paid draft of Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group was publish to article namespace. There is not much reason to fork out content. Swire article actually housed the parent, privately owned Swire and Sons, and the listed Swire Pacific and Swire Properties . Hong Kong conglomerate was like Matryoshka. It just a complete mess to fork out the content if the companies had almost exact name and area of business.
 * In fact, the redirect Chow Tai Fook Jewellery, Chow Tai Fook Jewellry Company and Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Company (all targeted to Chow Tai Fook in the past) were created back to 2008 to 2017 and not properly re-targeted to the new draft-to-article Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group until recently. Matthew hk (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the alleged copyvio problem.
 * Change to speedy delete G11 and Copyvio. Almost whole paragraph was direct translation from an 2010 article by East Week. The notability may had no problem, but content issue and overlapping with existing Chow Tai Fook article make the sub-article Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group redundant. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Chow Tai Fook. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC).
 * Redirect to Chow Tai Fook. Soft delete/merge are pretty much all related options. The company fails WP:NORG as written right now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.