From 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

A Line at Dawn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:BOOK-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Good find. I'm not sure it passes the notability threshold, but it's enough for me to withdraw my vote. TheBlueCanoe 04:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010(talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this but reopened since IMO believe there's no notability and merits a discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010(talk) 01:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. It's possible that other Chinese-language sources exist, and there's an argument to be made that we should assume they do in the interest of countering systemic bias, but there don't seem to be any English-language sources, and the two sources presented by Philg88 don't strike me as enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:42, 27 July 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.
From 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

A Line at Dawn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:BOOK-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Good find. I'm not sure it passes the notability threshold, but it's enough for me to withdraw my vote. TheBlueCanoe 04:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010(talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC) reply


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this but reopened since IMO believe there's no notability and merits a discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010(talk) 01:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. It's possible that other Chinese-language sources exist, and there's an argument to be made that we should assume they do in the interest of countering systemic bias, but there don't seem to be any English-language sources, and the two sources presented by Philg88 don't strike me as enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 16:42, 27 July 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook