Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic B2B

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. Sandstein 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magic B2B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. There is an absolute dearth of in-depth and WP:PERSISTENT coverage in reliable sources, and no suggestion elsewhere that the company is sufficiently notable to pass WP:NCORP; the few passing mentions that do exist are TOM Group press-release regurgitation. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : The subject lacks sufficiently convincing evidence of independent notability. More importantly, all Chinese sources except the last one are press releases.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2018 (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.