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.
Not notable and advert-like. The corresponding Chinese article has been deleted because it is
User:Shujenchang's self-promotion.
Jsjsjs1111 (
talk) 09:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Userfy or Delete. Could probably be worked into
User:Shujenchang's page, or we could just delete it.--
Omega625 (
talk) 18:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as there's loads of contents and sources, but still nothing actually apparent for any applicable notability.
SwisterTwistertalk 21:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the number of sources, a review by a Chinese-speaking editor might be helpful. Sandstein 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Most of the sources provided are cherry-picked and do not have a neutral stance. The role played by Zhang has not been significant at all, i.e., just showing a banner and making some noises would not make him notable.
STSC (
talk) 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: As a native speaker of Chinese myself, I'll have a look at these sources one by one:
Therefore, these sources are great in numbers but do nothing in proving the subject's notability.--
Jsjsjs1111 (
talk) 10:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The review of the above sources convinced me he is not notable. When you have to say that someone is notable because they met the Dalai Lama, or the Pope, or the President of the US, or other such figures, they are probably not notable at all. If they really are notable it would not be put in the lead to show they are notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:22, 7 June 2016 (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.
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.
Not notable and advert-like. The corresponding Chinese article has been deleted because it is
User:Shujenchang's self-promotion.
Jsjsjs1111 (
talk) 09:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Userfy or Delete. Could probably be worked into
User:Shujenchang's page, or we could just delete it.--
Omega625 (
talk) 18:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as there's loads of contents and sources, but still nothing actually apparent for any applicable notability.
SwisterTwistertalk 21:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the number of sources, a review by a Chinese-speaking editor might be helpful. Sandstein 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Most of the sources provided are cherry-picked and do not have a neutral stance. The role played by Zhang has not been significant at all, i.e., just showing a banner and making some noises would not make him notable.
STSC (
talk) 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: As a native speaker of Chinese myself, I'll have a look at these sources one by one:
Therefore, these sources are great in numbers but do nothing in proving the subject's notability.--
Jsjsjs1111 (
talk) 10:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The review of the above sources convinced me he is not notable. When you have to say that someone is notable because they met the Dalai Lama, or the Pope, or the President of the US, or other such figures, they are probably not notable at all. If they really are notable it would not be put in the lead to show they are notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:22, 7 June 2016 (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.