Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Provident Fund (South Africa)
- 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 redirect to Sanlam. after deletion Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Central Provident Fund (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent coverage and no evidence of notability of this specific fund. The article was a somewhat pointy creation in an effort to bolster the argument of those opposed to moving Central Provident Fund (Singapore) back to Central Provident Fund; see Talk:Central Provident Fund#Requested move. The article was previously redirected to Sanlam which was reverted. Unless there is more to be said about this specific fund, I think redirecting it to the managing company is the correct action. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —older ≠ wiser 16:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. older ≠ wiser 17:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established by the article, I couldn't find any significant independent coverage anywhere. - htonl (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sanlam, as I tried to do in response to a speedy deletion tag, unless and until significant coverage is found in independent reliable sources. Please see the article talk page for the arguments given against redirection, which I do not consider valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:POINT, WP:NOTE, and WP:ADVERT. The article was created to make a point during a move discussion and such an article, without independent coverage, is at best an unencyclopedic entry and at worst an advert. — AjaxSmack 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect – I agree it's not independently notable (I created it to be pointy, as pointed out above). Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable at all? No evidence has been supplied by any discussant for any encyclopedic notability whatsoever. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia does not have redirects for any other individual private funds simply because they exist. — AjaxSmack 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did someone say it's notable? No. So it shouldn't have its own article; that's what notability says. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By qualifying "notable" above, you did. — AjaxSmack 22:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did someone say it's notable? No. So it shouldn't have its own article; that's what notability says. Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as per WP:ADVERT, WP:PROMOTION. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:28, 7 February 2012 (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.