Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illumine Lingao


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  09:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Illumine Lingao

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This novel has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 18:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. The article provides two reliable sources about the subject:  There is more information about The Paper at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/business/international/china-media-the-paper-english.html.  There is more information about China Youth at zh:中国青年.  Notability (books) notes: "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." The substantial reviews in The Paper and the Chinese Youth journal, clearly establish that the book passes Notability (books). Cunard (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the article's sources. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I can't fully understand the Google translations of the sources identified but they appear to show coverage. The only argument for deletion here is the nomination, which makes a statement backed up by no explanation or analysis of the sources. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.