Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother's Choice (Hong Kong)


 * 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mother's Choice (Hong Kong)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obviously promotional article that might need WP:TNT if it were notable, but with only passing coverage in reliable sources, isn't. (The vast majority of the hits are about a giant truffle fungus, proceeds from the auction of which went to this group; there are also a number of paid press releases, other trivial mentions, and apparently one proper source.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I removed the prod and recommended that Roscelese take it to AfD. There's a temptation to see such a lengthy and detailed article as an obvious keeper, but as noted in the nom, once you actually look at the sources, there isn't much in the way of independent RS. There could be a cultural bias issue here though: I lack the competence in Chinese languages to assess all the possible sources. Leaning towards a weak keep, but let's see what happens.  Tigerboy1966  15:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also don't read Chinese, but from what I can tell from Google Translate, the sourcing or lack thereof in both of HK's official languages is comparable - tons of trivial (and truffle) mentions, some of what appears to be paid publicity. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - What's the fuss about? There are plenty of secondary sources (in English and Chinese): A list of published sources. STSC (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious promotional. The references by the user above are from the website of the subject.  Clicking through on any of the links on that page shows most are press release/promotional stories.  Caffeyw (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They are news coverage published by third parties although they are not all available online. STSC (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have significantly improved the article to be more encyclopedic and less promotional. STSC (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Article still reads as promotional, plus references are company produced reports, the company website, etc. The sections with references elsewhere are not about the company.  ie A section posts about needing sex education, and links to a website supporting that, however those references have nothing to do with supporting the notability of the company itself.  Caffeyw (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As the article has been tagged, it would continue to be cleaned up through regular editing. STSC (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep After watching this since it was nominated I am going for keep. It's a weak article, but it is improving.  Tigerboy1966  22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * stubify by removal of non-independently sourced content. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2013 (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.