Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popup Chinese

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. Tone 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popup Chinese[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable podcast. The references are mostly promotional, or to minor mentions in blogs and newsletters. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising, not notable AndrewvdBK (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Notable to anyone who speaks Chinese DLancashire (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC) — DLancashire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see the merit of the article through its usefulness. It does require some cleanup to WP:MOS and fixing references using the cite web templates. --Visik (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is weak, I'm not sure this passes WP:GNG. —SW— ^express 00:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I live in Beijing and most westerners I know here either listen to or have heard of this podcast. Sourcing looks weak, yes, but no reason for deletion, just improve the sources. Bienfuxia (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, in order for an article to be kept, it must be demonstrated that it is actually possible to improve the sources, rather than just saying, "improve the sources". —SW— ^chat 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're one to talk. "I'm not sure this passes WP:GNG". You're not even sure, let alone bothering to demonstrate it, and yet you vote delete and badger others about their vote. F me, deletionists just keep wanting to have it easier. Anarchangel (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is really that there are two kinds of English language news sources in China - Crap state-controlled ones and blogs. The blogs have higher editorial standards, are more respected, and are taken more seriously, but Wikipedia's rules mean that these are not usable as sources. City Weekend, Danwei and The Beijinger will all have made many references to the Sinica podcast, but unless they make the minor editorial decision to present their articles as part of an "online magazine," etc instead of "blog entries" it's going to be impossible to have decent articles about China on Wiki. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources increased from 4 inline at nomination to 11 inline. Ad language toned down. No longer an orphan. Wikified and internal links added. Anarchangel (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2011 (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.