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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan

[edit]

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

Not independently notable. No claim of notability. Does not demonstrate notability through sources- one source is about Tan Kah Kee, and the other refers to it's membership in redlinked Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 05:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find more sources which testify to the notability of the topic. See Politics of Nation Building and Citizenship in Singapore, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (quip) @ 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spout) @ 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets most, if not all of the criteria set out in WP:NONPROFIT. The problem seems to stem from poor referencing practices by editors, which I have now rectified.--Lionratz (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew & Lionratz - significant improvements & sourcing since nominating, Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 08:42, 18 January 2015 (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.