Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa Sa International Holdings


 * 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. After additional in-depth sources were found from RS, consensus is keep. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 13:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sa Sa International Holdings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It was prodded by User:PamD with the following rationale: "No evidence of notability" which I now endorse as the company is indeed failing Notability (companies). It was deprodded by User:Kanghuitari (creator) with no rationale. The one ref added does not seem to cut it (www.dailycosmetic.com does not seem like a reliable, mainstream source to me). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete : no evidence for notability. Pam  D  07:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral, now that the original editor has bothered to provide references which might indicate notability (this one seems likely, though may be based on a press release, and I can't evaluate those in Chinese). It would have been useful if they had done so sooner, and expanded the text, rather than just removing the PROD notice. The text at the time it was brought to Afd gave no indication that it was more than some neighbourhood group of three corner-shops, and would have been eligible for deletion as speedy A7 - no indication of importance. Pam  D  11:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I see no obvious improvement unless better Chinese sources are found. SwisterTwister   talk  07:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't find Chinese sources? Did U search as "莎莎"?         -- Kanghuitari (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Now, can you tell us if any of them provide in-depth coverage, are independent and reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That source are Chinese media. not blog. In particular People.cn of claims that Sa Sa grows 10.4%. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And also South China Morning Post stated: "Sa Sa International Holdings is one of Asia’s leading cosmetics retailers. Founded in 1978, it listed in Hong Kong 1997, and its operations span Hong Kong, Macau, Mainland China, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan." -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll reply to those below. Good job finding them - if you added them to the article in the first place, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: the chain had over 270 retail stores in Asian countries. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See  -- Kanghuitari (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And if it had 271, it would be just as irrelevant of argument. What part of "we are not Yellow Pages" (or an indiscriminate list of of small and medium companies) do you find unclear? Please tell us how this company meets the Notability (companies) requirement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In 2015, Forbes named Sa Sa one of their "Asia's 200 Best Under a Billion" companies. See -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While I do not consider the entry in Forbes database to be sufficient (since I do not know the criteria for companies to enter there), and  articles do seem to be reliable and in-depth. I'll ping User:PamD and User:SwisterTwister on whether they think it is sufficient that they'd change their votes, and would they suggest I withdraw this nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was surprised this even got to AfD because they're everywhere in Hong Kong! Anyway, I've found this article on Forbes and this article on SCMP which cover the history of the company in depth. There are also persistent (cf. WP:GNG) coverage about the company's developments over the years in various reputable news sources - (English sources) (Chinese sources), and the ones Kanghuitari found above. Deryck C. 17:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, and this recent edit. Seems to meet notability criteria. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am considering withdrawing this, but it would be nice if the author, instead of removing the prod w/ no comment and now adding another short sentence, would care to expand this a bit more with the plethora of promising sources found here. Please ping me when the article looks a bit less like a promotional sub-stub and I'll reconsider this nom (I am not currently in a position to be able to review all the sources myself - traveling). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Upon a review of sources in this discussion and in the article, meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although some of the sources provide only routine coverage. North America1000 02:04, 27 October 2015 (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.