Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-waste village (2nd nomination)

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. Based on the discussion, I believe a redirect to Electronic waste after the deletion would be appropriate. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-waste village[edit]

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

Second noimation; first was in 2009. Since, the article has grown none of the anticipated references or substantiation. This is transparently a neologism to create an extra page to draw attention to the BAN network page as Web searches for "E-waste village" reveal no viable hits. The only reference provided is to BAN, a secondary topic with a large subsection in this page and its own stand-alone page. The previous AfD suggested merging this content into Guiyu (town), which has a large Electronic waste section in addition to the standalone Electronic waste in Guiyu article. A redirect to the latter article or another one of the e-waste articles would be appropriate. Mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current article has managed to remove all references to Guiyu (town) and essentially has turned the article into a bad stub for electronic waste. This version is from the first AFD. The material is already covered in Electronic waste in Guiyu, and I don't see a lot of references to "E-waste Village" that would justify a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2013 (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.