Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Weekend
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, marginal notability established per the sources provided. The articles need to be cleaned up so as it doesn't read like an advertisement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] City Weekend
Questionable notability, no reliable sources. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as the nominator says. - Richardcavell 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know I'd find it a useful resource if in Beijing/Shanghai. "City Weekend" (beijing OR shanghai) gives about 28 hits, including an article copied into a German magazine, and someone in California referencing work writing for them in their CV. It has been publishing since 2004 at least, and many places in China seem to make reference to their selections in "best of" lists in the magazine. It looks like a good magazine, with good articles about expat life and concerns. ("Ta he de tai duo jiu" :-) But free because advertising is the main focus? And in China, and for expats. What is notable enough for magazines such as this? (Wow, typed "3500 RMB in dollars" into Google, and got an answer!) Shenme 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I've added some sources, and more could be found.—Carolfrog 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. While these local papers are interesting, this article reads like an advert. I'd say delete and start again with an article that asserts notability. Vegaswikian 06:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Reading like an advertisement is grounds for cleanup, not for deletion.—Carolfrog 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Has the requisite third party coverage, apparently an established publication. Sandstein 09:56, 11 March 2007 (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.
