Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese4

: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. Wifione ^Message 12:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[Chinese4]]=

:{{la|Chinese4}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese4 Stats])

:({{Find sources|Chinese4}})

The article does not cite sources establishing its notability, and a search does not turn up reliable secondary-source coverage. Hence it fails the WP:GNG test and WP:NWEB. Batard0 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment If page survives AfD, should be moved to Chinese for Europeans as the proper name of the project - see http://www.chinese4.eu/. PamD 10:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep (and rename as above) - have improved the article somewhat. PamD 11:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

:Looks much better, prose-wise, and should probably be renamed as suggested. My concern is that I can't find secondary, reliable sources independent of the subject who have taken notice of it. A regular Google search reveals little. A search on Google News and Google News Archives only produces an article from 1889 about gambling in China. The cited sources in the article are both related to the subject. It would be nice to keep this; am I overlooking something? Perhaps there's been coverage in Chinese... --Batard0 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete on the grounds that neither of the references is independent (one is a partner and one a responsible government agent. We have a long history of deleting such projects at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-ScienceTalk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMET (EU project), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter2Geo, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scape project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol-primett (project), etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. There's no notability and there's a lack of reliable secondary sources. --Cold Season (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete subject does not meet WP:WEB. --Breno ^talk 10:47, 24 October 2012 (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.