| Revision as of 01:05, 25 July 2011 editChzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users115,894 edits Creating deletion discussion page for Zhi Gang Sha. (TW) | Revision as of 12:21, 25 July 2011 edit undoQuasihuman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,529 edits weak keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :({{Find sources|Zhi Gang Sha}}) | :({{Find sources|Zhi Gang Sha}}) | ||
| Doesn't seem ] - lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources; most refs are self-published, others are entries for books in listings - no substantial content. The few remaining are not enough information to support an appropriate ]; it isn't ], and is somewhat promotional. Contested PROD. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | Doesn't seem ] - lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources; most refs are self-published, others are entries for books in listings - no substantial content. The few remaining are not enough information to support an appropriate ]; it isn't ], and is somewhat promotional. Contested PROD. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| '''Weak keep''' - there are reliable sources available, from '']'', from the '']'' (behind paywall), and from '']'' (behind paywall). I think there is marginally enough coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. I do think that the article does have content issues, and uses the subject's website as a source inappropriately, but I think there is enough in the sources to make a more neutral article. <font face="Franklin Gothic">]] | ]</font> 12:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:21, 25 July 2011
Zhi Gang Sha
- Zhi Gang Sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem notable - lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources; most refs are self-published, others are entries for books in listings - no substantial content. The few remaining are not enough information to support an appropriate biographic article; it isn't neutral, and is somewhat promotional. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep - there are reliable sources available, from Wired, from the Toronto Star (behind paywall), and from St. Petersburg Times (behind paywall). I think there is marginally enough coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. I do think that the article does have content issues, and uses the subject's website as a source inappropriately, but I think there is enough in the sources to make a more neutral article. Quasihuman | Talk 12:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Categories: