Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institutes studying Chinese Law


 * 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) 18:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Institutes studying Chinese Law

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Rather unencyclopedic "article": consists entirely of one working link, two redlinks, and then a linkfarm of other websites. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

This is going to develop into a central list of research institutes relating to Chinese law, of which there are more than 100 around the world. Having this article as a central hub will allow the information to be collected and disseminated more efficiently. The article is fully in compliance with the goals and aims of wikipedia and should remain intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.167.183 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we tell the diference between WP:List and WP:NOTDIR? It seems subjective.  Pirate Argh!!1!  19:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - there's always a gray area. In fact, if the article was a stand-alone list with working wikipedia articles for most institutes, I might probably say keep, because it would follow the guidelines and have notable entries. But it's mostly external links, suggesting that the institutes are not notable on their own and the page just becomes a directory of links hosted on Wikipedia, which is not what an encyclopedia or navigational lists are for.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article currently displays the { {underconstruction}} tag. If that is the case, then why doesn't the author move it to user namespace until it is completed? That would be more logical than having a currently meaningless article floating around in the mainspace. Also, pretty much nothing has happened to the article since the tag was applied. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Belisquare. That seems like a reasonable option, and would give the author time to flesh out the article as intended. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than a few taggings (my AfD, and an IP's underconstruction), a reordering and a page move, it can be argued that not much, if not nothing, has been done to the article since October 2009. If it was userfied, I wouldn't see how much progress would be made anyway, but at least it would be off the mainspace... for now. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per 137.122.49.102 and 李博杰 and since no progress is likely to get this to be a list instead of a red link, unreferenced mini-directory it is easily a delete per policy. If progress were made on making the article useful, then it might be worth keeping.   Pirate Argh!!1!  11:56, 16 April 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.