Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Chinese Physical Culture


 * 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. I must agree that the Times article is a passing reference, and several of the other links offered as reference are entirely dead. No prejudice to recreation if sources with significant coverage are discovered. Shimeru (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

College of Chinese Physical Culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

In spite of its name, this is a charity organisation. Coverage of its activities is thin and trivial. User:DGG deprodded on the grounds that this TES connect article constituted a good RS for notability. The article is trivial and does not meet the definition of a secondary source, as it does not analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This was deleted once before as g11 advertising, and it's not much more than that now. As per nom, the sources fail to define this specific subject; most in-line external links discuss the general practice, not this organization in detail. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's deprodding. The Times of London is a reliable source, period. The article is a full-length feature, and is hardly trivial.  Whether the reference to the organization is trivial or substantial, well that is debatable.  It seems OK by me.  There are also two other references, all of which need to be placed inline. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The mentions of this org in the sources are trivial, regardless of reliability. I was quoting DGG's edit summary, not saying the sources were unreliable. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   Read the LT article. I would not have deprodded this otherwise; I agree the importance is otherwise dubious, but I consider their judgment reliable. .  DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read and reread the article. The article is about a high school wushu class. Does this GCSE class deserve an article because it was mentioned in a human interest story? The College is not mentioned until the 10th paragraph, where it says "The wushu GCSE has been introduced by the College of Chinese Physical Culture and financed by the European Social Fund and the West Yorkshire Learning and Skills Council. The college, based in Leeds, teaches a particular style of wushu called weihai lishi quanfa which dates back more than 2,000 years." Then in the 18th paragraph there is contact information for the College, presumably for interested high school teachers. How is this the "Significant coverage" required by WP:N? Finally, WP:N says that "Multiple sources are generally expected.". This is one source, so even if it did analyze the topic as secondary sources are supposed to do, this organisation still does not deserve an article. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. The Times is certainly a reputable source. The Times Educational Suppliment (TES) is a free magazine given with the paper. As such its editorial standards aaren't quite so high and it is aimed at the 'lifestyle market' i.e. true, but tedious. Despite its length that source is trivial. It doesn't pass muster for WP. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2010 (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.