Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Hope 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 keep. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

East Hope Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient depth of coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sourcing consists of mentions and other routine business coverage. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep— All the information contained in the article is taken from reputable sources providing coverage on an international, national and local level. I have relied on established publications observing and analyzing the aluminium industry, widely circulated English news outlets, major Asian English-language dailies, Chinese news articles, as well as official government publications in Chinese. The article cites multiple independent sources. They are not merely trivial coverage, since they do not simply report meetings, phone numbers, routine notices, etc., as specified in WP:CORPDEPTH. Below is a run-down on the sources I used:
 * Industry About is a standard reference for industrial data in the metals sector based on transparency and a standardized method of gathering and analyzing data, including East Hope, as in this case. http://www.industryabout.com/country-territories-3/2094-china/aluminium-industry/32078-east-hope-baotou-aluminium-smelter
 * Bloomberg: well-established and well-trusted, the info cited is taken from its East Hope profile summary. https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/EHGCLZ:CH-east-hope-group-co-ltd
 * AluWatch is a major new aluminium industry watchdog consisting of individuals, NGOs, and business seeking to reduce the impact of climate change. It compiles a yearly set of key figures about the most important players in the market, and I used its East Hope figures. http://www.aluwatch.org/key-figures/
 * Forbes provides a highly anticipated list of the world’s billionaires on a yearly basis, from which the cited info about East Hope founder Liu Yongxing was taken. http://www.forbes.com/china-billionaires/list/#tab:overall
 * China.org is the Chinese government’s official news website, which means that the information provided needs to be utilized critically. However, no other news site has provided such an in-depth report of the Liu brothers and their respective enterprises, including East Hope, in English. http://www.china.org.cn/video/2008-10/27/content_16672447.htm
 * 2011 USGS Mineral Yearbook: a primary resource for anything related to minerals, there is barely any other publicly available report with such a range of information on activities of individual companies that would normally be ignored in other publications. https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2011-alumi.pdf
 * Platts: one of the most influential news providers, and market data analyst of natural resource markets. Its Metals Daily series is always the go-to publication for up to date, detailed observations on developments in the industry or individual companies. The same is true for Antaike’s Alumina & Aluminum Monthly, though with a narrower focus on aluminium. Because of East Hope’s prolific activities, the series often features concise articles on the company. The same applies to Antaike’s publications. http://www.antaike.com/uploadfiles/20120619/2012061915421737061.pdf
 * Aluminium Insider is a leading news platform specialized in the aluminium industry, supported by possibly the largest metals news analyst, Metal Bulletin. In a similar vein, Asian Metal stands out because of its interviews with people in the industry and relevant companies, such as in this case, where they interviewed an East Hope manager. http://aluminiuminsider.com/chinas-east-hope-group-to-invest-us1-5-bn-in-inner-mongolia/
 * http://www.asianmetal.com/metal_cron/2015/index_lunshi_wangzaitian_en.shtml
 * Xinhua is the Chinese government’s official press agency, so a critical mind is required, but is generally trustworthy when it comes to reporting government announcements and policy shifts, such as the one quoted in this Xinhua article. Although this article didn’t mention East Hope by name, it still provided relevant information in the context of East Hope’s business. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/16/c_135442680.htm
 * China Daily is one of the largest dailies, but with a somewhat broader reporting scope as Xinhua and with a more prominent opinion section. Unlike Xinhua, China Daily reports more often on Chinese companies, including East Hope, which is the focus of the article cited. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/interface/toutiaonew/1020961/2017-04-05/cd_28805896.html
 * Shandong News is a local news site, and since East Hope is operating multiple facilities in that province, it gets good coverage. http://sd.sdnews.com.cn/yw/201704/t20170405_2223916.htm
 * The Jakarta Post is commonly regarded as one of the most credible papers in Indonesia. The article specifically singles out East Hope for adding new capacity, in contrast to what the government demands. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/09/14/china-vows-to-cut-aluminum-output-but-producers-plan-growth-.html
 * All the Chinese Ministry and EPA publications are official documents of acute relevance to East Hope and offer a unique first-hand look into Chinese government action regarding the company’s activities. The level of detail has not been covered in the English-language media. They deal exclusively with East Hope. http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201105/t20110526_211199.htm http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201410/t20141028_290801.htm http://www.sdein.gov.cn/zwgk/gclssddqbz/2015/201504yue/201505/t20150513_278400.html http://www.dezhou.gov.cn/n19466299/n19789916/n19789964/n19790088/n19790326/n19790328/n19790344/c25185140/content.html
 * 163/NetEase is a widely read Chinese daily online paper. With the Chinese public becoming increasingly outspoken on the state of the environment, papers like these have become increasingly important in reporting on pollution accurately. Again, East Hope is the focus here. http://henan.163.com/16/1216/14/C8DPC1F302270ILI.html
 * As this list shows, these sources have a broad reach across both English and Chinese-speaking audiences. I therefore do not follow the reasoning that the notoriety requirements are not satisfied. On the contrary, East Hope, no less because of the controversies surrounding its activities, is clearly very much a part of the public discourse in the context of Chinese metal manufacturers.
 * To sum up, the sources used are important, verifiable and reputable in their coverage of East Hope. Chinabusiness (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the above was on the article's talk page while it was still a draft. Directory/list entries, mentions, routine coverage, and primary sources do not show notability. My breakdown of those sources:
 * Directory entry
 * Directory entry
 * List entry
 * East Hope not mentioned
 * East Hope not mentioned
 * Mentions only
 * Brief routine coverage
 * Routine coverage
 * Interview (primary)
 * East Hope not mentioned
 * No depth of coverage of East Hope
 * No depth of coverage of East Hope
 * Mention only
 * Primary government documents
 * No depth of coverage of the company
 * —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
 * Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
 * Establishes important context that reflects the importance of the company.
 * East Hope is clearly mentioned, and the reference provides important context on the company, as it establishes the link between its business undertakings and one of China’s richest individuals.
 * The article is crucial in establishing the family connections between East Hope’s founder and the other large companies run by his siblings, while helping to place the company into the broader socio-economic context of 1980’s China as well.
 * It still contains crucial information whose inclusion into the article is required, because it clarifies the scale of East Hope’s production and, therefore, provides a means of comparison against its competitors.
 * This is highly read and authoritative, so the fact that East Hope is included in the brief means that a large audience will be informed on East Hope’s actions.
 * Covers a major investment of the company, one of its biggest in recent years, making it clearly important information broader general interest.
 * Interview provided info that established the scale of East Hope’s activities. However, I re-wrote the sentence to clarify where the information came from.
 * This article is crucial for understanding the controversy surrounding East Hope’s actions. In tune with Wikpedia’s standards, I wanted to provide a citable source on the government’s policy to clearly show what the controversy is.
 * East Hope is the subject of the title and most of the public concern of illegal med use is directed against East Hope, seeing that it is a major animal feed provider.
 * See above, plus it has the full list included.
 * It is a pretty important mention due to it being the largest planned addition of capacity.
 * Seeing that these are primary government documents detailing the number and scale of East Hope’s infractions, this is vital information. Given that these docs cover major breaches of law, excluding them would mean a breach of Wikipedia’s rules on neutrality. Also, WP:CORPDEPTH does not mention that government documents are inadequate.
 * The cited article deals exclusively with an accident at one of East Hope’s plants. This is primary coverage of the firm’s activities.
 * —Chinabusiness (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because something is or can be used as a reference for something, does not mean that it can be used to establish notability. Based on the above, you do not understand the difference. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot judge the depth of coverage in Chinese sources, but it seems a sufficiently large company that it is likely to be notable. Given the WP:Cultural bias is sourcing, I think we should accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't read through chinese sources either but I had spent some time figuring out notability on the article when it was at afc. I gave it the go through when I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH should not be valid here as a criteria for deletion. If still in doubt, we could request translation of chinese sources (as machine translation isn't reliable). Yashovardhan (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've provided no policy based reason to keep the article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, .--Antigng (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first looks like routine finances reporting. The second one is an opinion piece Also, there isn't an article on zhwiki. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first report discusses the establishment and the projects of the company in detail, and if it were an routine reporting, it would only contain the paragraph four. The second one does have some personal opinions which should be treated as primary sources, but it also includes detailed analysis on the company's history and goals. Also, whether there's an corresponding entry on zhwiki is irrelevant. --Antigng (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (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.