Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gung Ho - ICCIC


 * 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   keep. X clamation point  12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gung Ho - ICCIC

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is confusing, unreferenced and non-notable. Even if the subject is notable (which it is not) the article would require a complete re-write to make it encyclopedic Azviz (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now. This article was begun only 2½ weeks ago &mdash; I'm inclined to give good-faith contributors somewhat longer than that (a month, maybe?) to insert material to establish notability. In any event, it does include one reference, from the New World Press, that at least gives the appearance of reliability. I'd want to hear why that book isn't a reliable source before agreeing to an AFD. (BTW, no question the article needs a lot of cleanup.) Ipoellet (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nominator complains that there are no references,but there are and if he/she had even looked he'd know that already. No doubt article needs some clean up, but that's not a reason to delete. DreamGuy (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Of the 3 references provided: the 1st is unverifiable; the 2nd is contains only a fleeting mention of the name of the subject with no further information; and the 3rd is the self-published propaganda of the subject. I see nothing that supports a notability. Untick (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have added ISBN info to the first reference, so it is now verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be enough coverage in these books to demonstrate notability, including coverage on 13 pages of this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (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.