Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qeelin


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Qeelin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although it the recent purchase of this company is discussed in a couple or reliable sources it doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPANY notability. I am One of Many (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep/comment As the article stands it is blatant WP:PROMO and direct WP:COPYVIO from http://www.qeelin.fr/site/swf/base.swf - but there are lots of sources on Google News in Chinese and French which don't all look like ads/promotional stuff, though I can't read Chinese and don't really understand French enough. I also see several published sources in Google Books, such as 1, 2, 3, a long section of French prose on Qeelin here, more French here, and another in Russian here. That's quite a bit of international published coverage for this company, which is why I am leaning keep, despite the immediate reaction to delete it as copyvio/promo. Mabalu (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Topic is probably notable because WSJ and Reuters have both bothered to run stories about it. I've cut out most of the article and rewritten the first paragraph to remove all the copyvios. Deryck C. 00:17, 5 March 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.