Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Line at Dawn


 * 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)

A Line at Dawn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG or WP:BOOK--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this book meets WP:GNG or WP:BK.  Gongshow   talk  05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above. No reviews or independent coverage that I can find that would support notability.  The Blue Canoe  12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Coverage (in Chinese) here (Radio Canada International). In depth bio of the author here with a description of the book by Association des écrivains chinois du Québec au Canada. Not sure if this is sufficient to push it over the notability threshold. Philg88 ♦talk 07:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find. I'm not sure it passes the notability threshold, but it's enough for me to withdraw my vote. The Blue Canoe  04:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * 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, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.