- 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 snow keep. Deletion is not on the table for what multiple sources have called "the most popular social network in China". If anything, a cleanup discussion is warranted on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- WeChat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising The Banner talk 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep At least the first version contains nothing promotional. Antigng ( talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Antigng ( talk) 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Hard to believe that this was nominated for deletion. No sign I could see of advertising. Its a pretty clean article with useful encyclopedic info and proper citation of sources about a topic of substantial and growing notability. Let's assume that the nomination was made in error and close it immediately. - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 05:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is not a nomination made in error. If you look at the article you see several empty section. But when you look closer, you can also see a lot of sources coming from WeChat itself, is parent company Tencents Holding or related companies as CogoBuy.
The Banner
talk 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, that can be fixed. In general, I don't see a lot of promotional language in the article, the article is not advertising. Having a lot of primary sources directly affiliated with the subject is not a proper reason for deletion. I've added a banner to the page notifying editors of the need to fix this problem. - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 16:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is not a nomination made in error. If you look at the article you see several empty section. But when you look closer, you can also see a lot of sources coming from WeChat itself, is parent company Tencents Holding or related companies as CogoBuy.
The Banner
talk 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Problems with the article's tone and content are to be dealt within the article. The topic itself is unquestionably notable in the Chinese world. _dk ( talk) 07:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I needed to know this information, so I came to the article. clearly notable. RfD is ridiculous. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:41, 25 March 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.
- 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 snow keep. Deletion is not on the table for what multiple sources have called "the most popular social network in China". If anything, a cleanup discussion is warranted on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- WeChat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
advertising The Banner talk 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep At least the first version contains nothing promotional. Antigng ( talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Antigng ( talk) 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Hard to believe that this was nominated for deletion. No sign I could see of advertising. Its a pretty clean article with useful encyclopedic info and proper citation of sources about a topic of substantial and growing notability. Let's assume that the nomination was made in error and close it immediately. - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 05:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is not a nomination made in error. If you look at the article you see several empty section. But when you look closer, you can also see a lot of sources coming from WeChat itself, is parent company Tencents Holding or related companies as CogoBuy.
The Banner
talk 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, that can be fixed. In general, I don't see a lot of promotional language in the article, the article is not advertising. Having a lot of primary sources directly affiliated with the subject is not a proper reason for deletion. I've added a banner to the page notifying editors of the need to fix this problem. - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 16:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it is not a nomination made in error. If you look at the article you see several empty section. But when you look closer, you can also see a lot of sources coming from WeChat itself, is parent company Tencents Holding or related companies as CogoBuy.
The Banner
talk 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Problems with the article's tone and content are to be dealt within the article. The topic itself is unquestionably notable in the Chinese world. _dk ( talk) 07:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep I needed to know this information, so I came to the article. clearly notable. RfD is ridiculous. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:41, 25 March 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.