Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private equity in China

: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 SPEEDY DELETE (Non-admin closure; was speedy-deleted during the AfD discussions) 龗 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:{{la|Private equity in China}} ([{{fullurl:Private equity in China|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private equity in China}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Sigh. Another great example of why we delete promotional articles rather than fixing them. I'm declining the db-spam speedy deletion because the article has been around 6 months, which makes it hard for the tagger and me to make the case that we're right and everyone else who's worked on the article is wrong; we need to come to AfD to demonstrate consensus. However, my vote here at AfD is speedy deletion. For anyone who doesn't see any problem with this article, I have an emerging markets fund that is rated #1, with guaranteed growth, but only for the first 100 lucky investors. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Technically salvagable, but to what end? Best to start afresh with an entirely new article and interested impartial editors, and delete this one in the meantime. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am very much focused on the improvement of coverage of private equity subjects on wikipedia but as currently constructed this article does not cover a separate topic. I don't even know if there is enough content of note here to warrant a section in the main Private equity article. It is really just an excuse to have a list of China-focused private equity firms. I do think the nominator needs to beef up the criteria for deletion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • :What do you want to see? - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete financespam ("Among the most active, successful and best-managed private equity firms focusing on China are" christ on a bike) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – Spam. --Julle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Spam, as per above. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Worse than spam, a possible pyramid scheme : Delete. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note Since we generally speedy-delete spam rather than having a 7 day discussion, I'm going to assume from the votes that that's what you guys want, unless you say otherwise within roughly 20 hours. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::That's my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Now speedied. I'd appreciate it if someone else would do the paperwork and close. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 14 June 2009 (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.