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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penkyampji[edit]

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

Previously deleted over a decade ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Penkyamp; claims to be resurrected using the Cantonese Wikipedia article (whose talk page features an accusation from 2016 that it is original research and should be deleted) and Facebook. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a hoax/OR, and fails WP:GNG. No mentions of the term in Google Books/Scholar. It is remotely possible it is based on some Chinese scholarly works that could lend it notability, but they are certainly not cited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 22 March 2017 (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.