Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Chinatown


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Inside Chinatown

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Mere puffery. Hoary (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like it won a 2010 outstanding achievement award from Heritige BC. Not that I think that throws it over any threshold, but I think it would be prudent to have a deletion rationale that was a little more extensive than "Mere puffery".--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment in three parts. &para; On my nomination. The article looked like mere puffery. I said no more, because no more was obviously needed, because I was tired, and because people aren't always thrilled by my longer nominations. &para; Good catch. That does look like real notability, and I should have looked for and found it. &para; But we have a new problem: The heritagebc.ca page says for example that this is a landmark publication chronicling the vibrant heritage of Canada's oldest Chinatown. By contrast (or not), our article talks of a landmark picture book showcasing the vibrant Chinese-Canadian heritage. The two passages seem oddly related. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked for "flat out copyright volations" and it wasn't copied "word for word", but it is still pretty promotional and very closely worded to the original. Inadequate paraphrasing of a promotional review produces a promotional Wikipedia article I suppose.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- It is indeed puffery from start to finish and would require a total rewrite to be encyclopedic. My advice is to pave over it and start again, if enough sources can be found to justify a stand-alone article. Reyk  YO!  08:16, 6 November 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.