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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Village, China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No sources, and a quick Google search reveals that the great majority, if not all, of the websites describing this area do not satisfy WP:Reliable sourcing requirements. A lack of coordinates or more specific administrative information isn't helpful either.
Redirect to Yang Bin: Since the sources have been found, the information itself can be kept. However, it does not seem to have much merit as its own article, so re-directing should be the better course of action.—HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete especially due to unsubstantiated claims about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yotemordis (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, enough Google news hits on reliable sites to establish notability.  --Lambiam 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• However it doesn't appear to be an official administrative division and seems only to be notable in the context of this aristocrat's career; at best this should be re-directed to him, but I am not ready to change my vote yet. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the first place, this is the name of a development, and not an administrative division. If this development was a contributing factor which led to the downfall of a significant businessman, than this article is probably notable, but I am not ready to offer a definite vote yet until I find out more.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:29, 15 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 June 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.