Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimsum (organisation)


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dimsum (organisation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Although it appears to be a noble cause, it also appears to be non-notable and I haven't found any reliable third-party sources. Despite that the article claims the establishment date was 2002, I have found absolutely nothing to support this article's information from third-party sources, but there would be little to support with the article's current promotional state. Despite searching with Google News US and UK and Google Books with multiple terms including "non-profit", "2002", "Chinese culture" and "London", it seems they may never have received news coverage. EDIT: (29 September 2012) Looking through the edit history, I noticed that this 2002 BBC News article was removed nearly five years ago. Although the article is detailed, I believe this is insufficient and reads like an advertisement therefore not useful. I simply wanted to bring this to attention. SwisterTwister  talk  05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Comment The Guardian website has some mention of the organisation: highlighting the website in a 2008 article,and coverage of their protests relating to the UK 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. The first is effectively a passing mention and the second discussion initiated by the organisation and noted by the Guardian letter ombudsman, so I don't see them as sufficiently substantial in themselves to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to British Chinese or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator asked my opinion. I dod not see the point of such a very general redirect--it would amount to including a list of all British chinese social web sites to the article, and we are not a web directory. I cannot tell whether or not the organization is notable, but this is one of the very rare situations where I can see either a keep or delete, but not something in the middle. (I know I have often said that anything can be fitted in somewhere,even if it doesn't make an  article by itself, but I see I was over-generalizing.)  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think the best option, for now, is to delete the article as it seems the subject never received significant coverage to support an appropriate article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 29 September 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.