Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia excluding Greater China

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asia excluding Greater China (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)

Article does not actually make sense, (how can something excluding "Greater China" just replace the previous term "excluding Japan") and no evidence that this term is other a generic description (like "Europe excluding Germany"). Imaginatorium (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Google search shows that the term is used primarily in organizational job descriptions, where one or more persons are assigned to cover the non-Chinese part of Asia, with presumably one or more other employees assigned to Chinese areas. I have not found any significant coverage of the phrase itself. Accordingly, it doesn't seem notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate term that is used in the financial services industry particularly relating to market activity and investments in Asian markets that do not include China. I have added four sources that reflect this including Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K from the US Government. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment None of the sources you provide actually devote significant coverage to the topic "Asia excluding Greater China" itself, and the third and fourth use it exactly as I said - as part of a job description. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, the sentence to which these references are attached makes absolutely no sense. What are "supernormal profits" (linked to a children's tv programme and the generic word 'profit')? What, exactly is "situated in Asia"? And if this is about new access to the China economy, why invest somewhere else? Note also that this meaning of "Greater China" is missing from Greater China (I think). There may well be relevant content which could be usefully added to that page. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of course it is possible to find places where this expression is used, just as it is possible to find places where the expression "put the book on the table" is used, but that is not enough to justify an article on the subject. The question is whether there is any source that does not merely uses the expression, but devotes significant coverage about it. Neither the article nor my searches produce any such source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term does not seem to have the high level of usage or notability the article suggests. From searches, the term often is displayed as Asia (excluding Greater China), as if to indicate a clarification of what they mean, rather than a distinct type of practice. Information on why businesses might exclude China may be useful in different titled articles, but this article treats the actual term as distinct, when it does not appear to be. Scarlettail (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (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.