Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinduicheng Molybdenum

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 Withdrawn by nominator. Deryck C. 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jinduicheng Molybdenum

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a metals producer has had only two references for the last 10 years, both of which are non-RS. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) finds it mentioned - along with dozens of other metals manufacturers - in scores of press releases from market analyst firms promoting forecasting reports but no WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list company and way many in-depth article by using the Chinese name (Chinese: 金堆城钼业) to search. The quality of the wiki article is not the reason to delete it. Matthew hk (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw as nom based on above !vote. Thanks to Matthew hk for being able to do a more thorough BEFORE, in Chinese, than I was able to do. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2019 (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.