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 keep. Though before the 7 day period, it's pretty clear this AFD falls under the snowball clause in terms of opinions here, and as a result, I don't see an issue with closing it early. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Canton (1857)[edit]

Battle of Canton (1857) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article really should be deleted because it's too short to get more information. And it needs a verification by an expert, but there's no expert can help except for me. Spellcast suddenly created it as soon as I told him the Chinese version. He seems to make one only for connection to the Chinese version.

Some readers will try reading on Simple English Wikipedia as simple as they want, of course, some people can not read English or consider reading in English is hard to hit.

So as my honest advise, removing from English wiki is the best choice not only in order to waste our time but also check this unfinished one. The Simple English verison is only enough, nothing can be helpful aside from deletion. 俠刀行 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the Simple Englsh and Chinese wiki articles, the battle appears to be notable, with what appears to be significant coverage available in reliable sources - while the current article isn't very good, the solution is improvement, not deletion.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep "no expert can help except for me" seems to be an absurd reason to delete. For one thing, it is clearly false as a quick search soon turns up a detailed English-language source: The Bombardment of Canton. Warden (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'll try to knock out a translation from the Chinese page tomorrow. It's probably best if I do most of the writing as 俠刀行 is clearly not a native English speaker.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that won't be necessary. The Chinese wiki uses Chinese sources, but per WP:NOENG, English language sources are preferred over non-English ones unless there's no English sources of equal quality. Spellcast (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I merely created this stub when 俠刀行 showed me the Chinese version. There's nothing wrong with a stub. Just because the Chinese version is longer than this one, it doesn't mean this has to be deleted. There's no deadline. I have no doubt this will expand over time. Also, I've removed the unnecessary article tags. ((Expand Chinese)) isn't needed because English language sources are preferred over non-English ones. And ((Expert-verify)) isn't needed because it's sourced and no-ones doubting its authenticity. Spellcast (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A historic battle is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Size is not relevant. Dream Focus 09:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like a pie in the sky.--俠刀行 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er. Try Googling a little before !voting, eh? Fences&Windows 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- articles on real battles are generally considered appropriate for this encyclopedia. The article is short, but that in itself is no reason to delete it. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm afraid I cannot fathom the nominator's reasons for nomination, which almost appear to be sour grapes that he didn't create it. Perfectly acceptable subject for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, U didn't hit the truth.--俠刀行 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Second Opium War unless/until (verifiable) information on this battle can be found beyond its bare WP:ITEXISTS existence. An article should describe its topic, not merely assert its existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. ((sofixit)). A little effort would be nice. Fences&Windows 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Competence is required, and the Opium wars are well outside my area of expertise. Changing !vote to unqualified keep as sufficient cited information has been added to merit unredirected continued existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am unable to find the reason why nominator wanted to delete. "there's no expert can help except for me"?--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The battle is notable, and the nominator does not provide any clear reason for deletion. If it is too short, then improvement is the answer, not deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. I actually added some sources, how about that! Sheesh, don't just !vote to keep - that rescue tag is there for a reason, i.e. to encourage edits to improve the article. Would anyone care to improve on my start on this stub? There's plenty more to write about, I'm sure there's a featured article in it for someone who cares enough. Fences&Windows 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, no people care. Because no need this article was created randomly by a man (Sorry, but must say). He was not prepared, he was not ready, as I saw his first edit: 1791 bytes.--俠刀行 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources presented here and in the article shows it passes WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Obvious keep. The person who has nominated it for AfD has no logical reason to do so. The article is a part of Opium Wars and has been categorized as such.Jethwarp (talk) 07:24, 14 July 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.