Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Chung


 * 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.  Syn  ergy 01:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tan Chung

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails to assert notability and lacks sources. A google search returns only 736 likely matches. KaySL (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —J.Mundo (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. For an 80-year old professor of Chinese Studies who has spent his working life in India I would have thought that 736 Google hits is a pretty good return, but, anyway, it's the quality of those hits that counts, not the quantity. This article from The Hindu (already cited in our article) certainly provides substantial coverage, and this article from The Times of India is devoted to his proposals for solving Sino-Indian border disputes. They were the two most obvious examples that came up in a Google News archive search, but many more of those hits seem to be about this Tan Chung. Google Scholar is pretty useless for this due to the subject's having too many namesakes, but a Google Books search comes up with quite a few hits that obviously, from the snippets displayed, relate to this Tan Chung. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are hard to find, but, as noted by Phil Bridger seems to meet WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one specialized book, China and the brave new world, currently in more than 250 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (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.