Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Chinese Markets


 * 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   speedy delete. patent nonsense L Faraone  01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Chinese Markets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contesting Speedy and opening an AfD. I think the article has merit but certainly needs work. Tyros1972 Talk 07:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Delete probably speedy. I can see no merit in the article. Aside from the unreferenced WP:POV section upfront about the supposed greed of the Chinese, the article consists of large chunks of text copied without attribution from other Wikipeda articles: Secret_passage, Egyptian_Museum, in breach of the licensing terms. And neither has anything to do with the purported subject of the article anyway; it just seems to be there as ballast. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as nonsense/copied text/attack page. Ansh666 17:42, 9 June 2013
 * Citing criteria A1 (no context)/G12 (copyright issues)/G10 (WP:Attack page). For A1, the article is actually only 3 sentences long: the first section and a sentence tacked on at the end of the last section; it's quite unclear what it's talking about (the table is perhaps "on-topic", but very unsourced. For G12, see AllyD's comment. For G10, well that should be obvious (and well, yes, I am of Chinese descent, so...) Ansh666 00:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, after deletion, redirect to China trade or Old China Trade, since I could see this as being a potential search term. Pity anyone who tries it right now, though. Ansh666 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * good call speedy delete Panpog1 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - because WTF? Seriously, this has no coherent topic, much of the material seems to be irrelevant to the purported topic, and the references don't seem to have any reason to be in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2013 (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.