Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese numbered policies


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese numbered policies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A smart observation, but unfortunately a wikipedian's neologism and original research. Let's see, who besides wikipedia uses this term? Wow! bestbuy.com! 233 of them found on sale there! The page was created in 2003, when it was not so clear what wikipedia is to be, but unfortunately today this page must go. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SYN poster child. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails the rules on lists. Since its creation 9 years ago, consensus has changed on what Wikipedia is and is not. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced OR, though have anyone bothered looking on Chinese sources on this concept? I highly doubt that there is any good Chinese sources however as this subject area is probably the most common in Asian historiography written in English. If this concept isn't covered in English journals and books, unlikely that there's any sources for this. Secret account 05:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No opinion. Although I've made quite a few edits to this page (and have been notified of this discussion), I don't really think I can decide on what to side with. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 11:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources since 2009? This has to go from wikipedia. --Artene50 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete No references just add on to the fact that this is original research, which is against our policies. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. Never heard of that when I was in China.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, blatant WP:OR. Specs112   t   c  14:21, 25 June 2012 (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.