Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China marble

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. Could be userfied if someone wants to competently write a new and sourced article about this topic. Sandstein 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China marble

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

It has no references and is completely unreadable. The only way someone could fix this article would be to rewrite it entirely. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems this is a translation of some kind of material about marble from China? Either way, it looks marketish at best and I couldn't find enough information that could possibly turn this into a viable article. Let's say it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and leave it at that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The user who started it appears to have been trying to market their wares: I speedy-deleted some more overtly promotional material. This was not quite in speedy deletion territory, but isn't usable in its current form. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should be notification of this deletion in the China project and the Mining project. This is a transparency comment, and not a comment on the merits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like a promotional piece and the lack of reliable secondary sources adds to it. --Cold Season (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This article is very poorly written and should not be kept in mainspace, but it could be userfied for reference purposes for a start on a new and completely rewritten article. I looked into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts project, which is not applicable for this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2012 (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.