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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AOAart[edit]

AOAart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Organization lacking significant coverage in RS. I understand that my search may not have turned up anything because this organization is based in Beijing. However, it is totally unsourced and completely promotional. If sources can be found, it would be a good candidate to stubify. Citrivescence (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now, there seems to be some mainstream coverage in Japanes and Chinese news sources, but I do not have the ability to evaluate them. We need someone who can read those to give an informed opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no references, and the listed domains in the page are dead-links. The fact they're defunct suggests it came and went Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG as it has lacked sources for over five years and I found no sustained WP:SIGCOV in a WP:BEFORE search I did. This heavily promotional article also fails WP:NOPROMO, although that is ironically tempered by the fact that the organization appears to be defunct and this article no more then a relic to an old abuse of Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2019 (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.