Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunan Coal Group

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nom, no delete opinions. I consider my previous

(non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (tc) 15:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Hunan Coal Group

Hunan Coal Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did

WP:NCORP
, but I found nothing that can establish notability. Here is a breakdown of cited sources:

This article has been reviewed and rated Stub-class, which means it is a promising starting article, though large space remains for improvement.
Hunan Coal Group is a large coal mine company of more than 30,000 employees, the largest in Hunan Province of China. This fact alone may make it worthwhile for an introduction in wiki.
As for the reliability of the sources, I will discuss later. Ctxz2323 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NCORP. It requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. It doesn’t really matter how big the company is; if the company is significant, it should obviously get coverage from reliable sources. Also, an article getting reviewed does not guarantee that it will be there forever. GrabUp - Talk 03:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:SIGCOV to know what In-depth coverage means. GrabUp - Talk 09:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
These are offline sources. The quotes I provided are not the full articles. For most of the articles, there is more coverage of the company that I did not quote. The quotes I provided are sufficient to demonstrate the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization."

Cunard (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@
reliable independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 10:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
With the responses "a very good excuse" and "you can add whatever you want", there is nothing substantive I can or want to say in response. Cunard (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Hey, I want to know how and where you get these articles. I mean, obviously, you don't have all these printed copies in your home, so I just want to know where you search and get them. GrabUp - Talk 10:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, people access would access subscriptions to non-
state library or academic library). Individual subscriptions do of course exist, but they are usually more expensive than they are worth. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a good resource generally, but I do not believe it has much in the way of Chinese (and other East Asian) sources. I believe some US institutions have access to the newspapers in question via East View or Apabi, for example. Some other institutions may instead have some specific sources in their microfilm collections, though as those do not usually have full text indexes they are much more annoying to search. Alpha3031 (tc) 05:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, but I wanted to know from him where he got these. His lack of reply to my question is raising some concerns about these offline sources. GrabUp - Talk 07:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Cunard has already conducted a thorough search of sources.
    in good faith. I am not sure what the nominator is trying to nitpick here. It is reasonable to challenge the authenticity of the sources, but that should be done by providing evidence of any flaws or uncertainties, not just bludgeoning without any basis. But since there are still potential doubts about the sources listed in this discussion, I have done some additional searches for Chinese sources online, coming up with articles from Xinhua News Agency[1], China Daily[2], Shanghai Securities Journal[3], Red Net [zh][4][5], China News Service[6][7], Sohu[8], and People's Daily[9]. All of these are verifiable online sources with SIGCOV. I believe these newly located sources should help settle the disputes from the previous discussion. Keep per NCORP. —Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 18:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Prince of Erebor: *Keep: Thanks for coming up with these sources. I am withdrawing the nomination, as I am convinced by the sources you provided. GrabUp - Talk 10:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Grabup: Glad that my searches helped settle your doubts. And I genuinely appreciate you being responsible to review the newfound sources and follow up on the nomination once consensus can be made! —Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 11:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough to satisfy
    WP:GNG. Don't have anything else to add than whats written above. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2024 (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.