Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ENHANCE International LLC


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ENHANCE International LLC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete, provided references do not show this to be a notable company. One is a schedule to a seminar, the other is a two or three sentence bio on the co-founder and the last is just a company profile. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a company that has been quoted by the Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CNBC, Bloomberg Businessweek amongst others. Also please go to investing.businessweek.com. User did not look at that link. You will find the company in there. Only companies that are potential for going public or may be target for investment are listed in there. Below are a few of the links mentioned:

Bloomberg Bloomberg , The Wall Street Journal , The Economist, Financial Times --Magedboc


 * Weak keep article seems to satisfy WP:GNG, but not too sure it'd satisfy WP:N. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Philg88. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

*Keep I agree with user above that it clearly meets WP:GNG as these are unquestionably reliable sources and more importantly they are multiple highly reliable sources. In terms of WP:N I agree with the other user above that if Bloomberg has listed them in their investment database. they have potential as a future investable company. Finally i found this additional article in The Financial Times it appears that all the major reliable business sources look to this company for events in China's Financial Services development. China's economy is by far a notable topic and the financial services industry will drive the economy's future transformation --Edisonmag — Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

*Keep this reliable source provides a summary on the company. I also found this article on the Chengdu Global Investment Summit in Chengdu China where the company is the feature of the article I also found a bunch of articles that were in Chinese that I assume my not be useful for English speaking editors/commenters --yafangari — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC) *Keep I have counted - now there are at least over 10 references to the company and that may not be the final count. You are talking about almost all of the most credible financial media sources, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist just to name a few. If that is not significant coverage, I don't what is Gosarkis (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC) *Keep Do a search on Insurance in China or China's demographics and you will find that this company is the main source Taalasarcu (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment None of these sources covers the company in detail, as required by WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the many sources provided are more than a passing mention. To satisfy the guideline for corporations, significant coverage is needed, not just mentions or quotes from someone who works for them.  Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe we need a sockpuppet investigation.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Delete (I was half asleep) – per Philg88. Agree that it meets GNG; disagree that Hell in a Bucket is a sockpuppet (if that was who the IP was refering to; I may be wrong). United States Man (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply User:Magedboc, User:yafangari, User:Gosarkis and User:Taalasarcu seem to be sockpuppets, since they were created after this afd began.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes better sense. Sorry. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Defintely not a sockpuppet ;) I don't mind checkusers checking me though. If the community trusts them with that info I'm ok with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the General Notability Guideline. The references cited and those quoted above are passing mentions/press release reprints and do not provide the required significant coverage (Note that I am unable to access the FT article cited by ). I'm also not seeing the type of in-depth coverage on Chinese sites, which I would expect for a notable organisation. Philg88 ♦talk 06:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the comments above--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2014 (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.