Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SinoTech Group

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SinoTech Group

Fails WP:CORP; no independent secondary sources. Attempt at advertising by yet another minor internet marketing organisation. Claims to be "... one of the largest independent full service internet marketing Companies in China" (whatever that means) but nothing is provided to support the claim and my investigations suggest that what it implies is unlikely to be true.

Comment Moondyne You were incorrect in suggesting SinoTech Group was operating for only a month. The link you referenced did not indicate that at all and in fact the company commenced operations in April 2007 as was stated. I agree a secondary reference would be needed but does not warrant removal. Further, SinoTech Group is known as one of the largest independent digital marketing company's in China and many links to verify that can be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrahbear (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew McDougall (I've kept them separate, as this one may cross the line if some sources are found, but I personally think not). –Moondyne 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —–Moondyne 03:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears the company has been operating for about one month - about the same time the article was created. –Moondyne 03:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Remove the advertising language and all we're left with is that it is a company. There's nothing to salvage, and google pops up nothing but a handful of press releases[1][2] and an interview with an industry blog[3] that has a lot of buzzwords and doesn't say much. Everything I found fails WP:CORP standards to establish independent, reliable verification of notability.--Talain (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to establish notability with reliable sources. Looks a bit like advertising, in fact - one or two peacock terms evident. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is obvious advertising, so there isn't even a point debating notability: although I tend to the opinion that the business notability guidelines need to be tightened up to avoid having to lawyer about non-consumer businesses like this one: The technology solutions initially focused on Web analytics and Ad serving. This being an area where few Chinese marketing companies had solutions .... In 2008, SinoTech Group extended the product and services offering to include Search Engine Marketing & Social Media Marketing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total advertisement. Absolutely no information available that provides knowledge to any individual, other than the fact that the company exists. There are phone books for this kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dminnaar (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (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.