Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChinaJoy

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. Per improvements. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaJoy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion G11 and although that speedy-deletion was declined, I stand by the statement - it "'does nothing but promote some entity" and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic - If that tagging was not correct, please let me know.

It was created by now-blocked China JOY2010 (talk · contribs) on 15 August.

The CSD tag was removed by Extransit (talk · contribs) rm csd, not spam, some good content here, will edit

I explained my rationale for the tag on their user talk page, asking for further input, but they have not, to date, responded there. User talk:Extransit#ChinaJoy

I proposed deletion on 23 August [1], and the PROD was removed by DGG (talk · contribs) please look for sources, & if not findable, use AfD. This was discussed, User_talk:DGG#ChinaJoy.

So the main issue here is that yes, perhaps this might be possible to write about the subject (ie notability is possible, because there is no current independent referenced content, it serves merely to advertize. There might be sources in other languages, but I am not able to rewrite it myself. Chzz ► 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11, would require a full rewrite to remove the spam, and it isn't even coherent spam. Actual quote: "ChinaJoy is a great platform for communicating in different field." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G11 (and maybe also A7?). Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Clearly a notable event. AfD or other way of deletion is not a good solution. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed the article substantially, removing spam and unreferenced claims. I also added more refs. It is now a decent stub with a possibility of expansion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current version. The CNN , Guardian, and China Decoded refs in the current version are RSs for notability. Yes, I made an error: I did not look myself earlier, because I doubted there would be anything in English. I see three other editors, all of them good editors, made the same error. The point of WP:BEFORE is that you cannot know till you look. I consider this article a good demonstration that rewriting and referencing were in fact possible. I admit I made a guess for that, but my guess was right. I'm not saying it always is--I know I've make mistakes in both directions, both in deleting and in not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, WP:HEY. It is good enough now, and is well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we happy with those table contents? They are primary sourced, and I'd think they are WP:NOT; somewhat promo, too; just listing sponsor orgs, etc. Chzz ► 10:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.