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. Considering that after sources were unearthed by Phil, all the !votes were to keep (and one "delete" changed to "keep", albeit weak), it is not implausible to think the other commenters who opined to "delete" might similarly reconsider, which sways this closure towards keep instead of what would clearly be a "no consensus". ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉03:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I'm unable to check the quality of the Chinese-language sources, but I defer to Phil's assessment of them with his experience in the area. This said, I still have no idea what kind of coverage these sources contain (press releases? original reporting? blurbs? full articles?), apart from that I now have links from major outlets. –
czar16:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
It clearly asserts notability in the second paragraph ("38th amongst top 100 internet companies in China", "second biggest browser game platform"), though as long as the references fail to load, it's unsubstantiated and nevertheless lacking reliable, secondary coverage. Still good enough for defeating the speedy. –
czar14:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)reply
don't delete just change two reference source Czar mentioned that are failed to load.I changing them to article of portals of Tencent and Sina, which rank no.2 and no.4 traffic among Chinese websites. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gamefant (
talk •
contribs)
02:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)reply
If the company is significant for those rankings, where is the reliable, secondary source coverage? Can you help us find Chinese-language sources? –
czar19:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Being included on that list of top Internet companies doesn't count for much on its own. We're finding mostly press releases or passing mentions (such as inclusion in a list) for this company (at least as "37Games" or "37.com"—we might find more if we use the "Sanqi" name), such that we don't have complete evidence of
significant coverage in multiple
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) We need to have actual non-press release content in order to write a balanced article, otherwise it's better off redirected or deleted. Forbes would be a start, but it's more usable for an article about Sanqi than about 37Games, no? And I'm having trouble establishing whether the short QQ and People.cn short articles are (1) reputable and (2) discuss the company in more than a passing fashion. –
czar13:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
"Sanqi" actually is the Chinese pronunciation of 37. – [user talk:goodmanishere] 11:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Goodmanishere (
talk •
contribs)
Keep I was intending to close this as delete but after some digging there are a raft of
reliable sources out there in Chinese. Pace avoidance of
systematic bias, it is
notable and should be kept. Note that the Chinese article (now linked) has been tagged for the equivalent to
WP:PROMO since December 2014, which means that it too needs better sourcing. I've added Chinese searches for sources so others can get an idea of the coverage out there—also pinging
Czar per his request above.
Philg88 ♦
talk06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Philg88, thanks for this. I'm not familiar with Chinese-language reliable sources. Which of those hits are reputable, and not just rehashes of press releases? (Or is there a list of such domains somewhere in project space, perhaps something on par with
WP:VG/RS?) Could you help with my QQ/People.cn question above? –
czar13:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources to make this article pass
WP:ORG. I found and added a news source in just 5 seconds. I also found coverage in Chinese language, as already pointed by
Phil. The subject passes our notability threshold. JimCarter13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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.