Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Garden Charitable Trust


 * 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   no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. A merge close would have been an option but there was only one editor arguing for it. However, nothing is preventing the article from being merged anyway. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Garden Charitable Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I prodded the article due to a complete lack of WP:RS to establish any kind of notability. Someone removed the prod notice so this is the next logical step. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Merge any reliably independently sourced information to Hong Kong Dragon Garden, for which this Trust article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. I disagree with the nomination statement in that there are WP:RS sources provided. For example, it references this article from the Ming Pao newspaper. However, most of the other text is referenced to the organization's website, concerns the Hong Kong Dragon Garden and/or is promotional. The non-independent info should be deleted and the remainder merged to the parent article. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification The complete lack of WP:RS that I mentioned in the nomination refers to the fact that as far as I can tell there are no WP:RS covering the function of the trust itself as a notable entity, in that there is no reliable source that actually praises, analyses, criticises the trust or its functions etc. The source you provided simply mentions a spokesman of the trust in passing but most of the rest of the article mentions the Dragon Garden only. This in my mind does not establish notability for the trust itself neither it is sufficient coverage of the Trust as an inependent entity. Otherwise I do not disagree at all with your proposal of merging any wp:rs related info to the main article. Dr.K. λogos πraxis  20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I better understand your point now. Thanks for clarifying that. — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Take care. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 23:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 11:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.