The result was keep; consensus is that the site is notable due to extensive substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, most of which have been added to the article during the AfD. WP:SOAP issues, if any, can probably be fixed through editing. Sandstein ( talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Definitely
WP:SOAP, with questionable
WP:N and
WP:SOURCES issues.
Beidabaozi (
talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:ATP
Beidabaozi (
talk)
06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
comment to Hong Qi Gong and Nick Connolly - if you follow the links, they are not articles about the website; they are articles about the Chinese government's objections to western coverage of China-related issues. This is the definition of a WP:COATRACK; the article ostensibly about the website is being used as an excuse to discuss these issues. There is little or no substantial coverage of the website, certainly none in reliable sources. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep; consensus is that the site is notable due to extensive substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, most of which have been added to the article during the AfD. WP:SOAP issues, if any, can probably be fixed through editing. Sandstein ( talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Definitely
WP:SOAP, with questionable
WP:N and
WP:SOURCES issues.
Beidabaozi (
talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:ATP
Beidabaozi (
talk)
06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
comment to Hong Qi Gong and Nick Connolly - if you follow the links, they are not articles about the website; they are articles about the Chinese government's objections to western coverage of China-related issues. This is the definition of a WP:COATRACK; the article ostensibly about the website is being used as an excuse to discuss these issues. There is little or no substantial coverage of the website, certainly none in reliable sources. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply