Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuotu


 * 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. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tuotu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable software, used in Chinese speaking areas. Speedily deleted under WP:CSD by an admin that had checked for English language sourcing. Contested at DRV, where consent to list here for evaluation of any non-English language sources that might be found could be done was obtained. Attention requested from Chinese speaking editors. Absent some sourcing it should be deleted, but I don't speak or read Chinese, so I am only a weak delete. GRBerry 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. A very short article that does not establish the notability of the application. If it is "used in Chinese speaking areas" then it properly belongs in Chinese Wikipedia. WWGB 13:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That has never been the practice or intention of Wikipedia. Each language edition should seek to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, unmarred by bias. the wub "?!"  18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "bias". Do you believe that every Wikipedia article should be translated into every language? That is the implication unless we accept that some articles are of particular relevance within certain cultural, language or national groups. WWGB 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes! And see WikiProject Countering systemic bias. the wub "?!"  11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - This is a popular software that's been covered in articles/product reviews by newspapers. But I'm not sure if it's notable beyond just that: that it's a popular software that's been covered by news sources.  Note that the article gives the Chinese name in Traditional Chinese.  It would be helpful to also search under its name in Simplified Chinese, which is 脱兔.  Not much different, but search engines aren't as smart as we are.  :p  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Hot-linking to the first article doesn't seem to be working, perhaps the website is preventing hot-linking. So I've changed the first link to a Google search result.  Click on the second returned Google result - that's the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable in the English-speaking world. Realkyhick 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there some policy on English WP that I'm not aware of that states that notability requirements need to be specific to the English-speaking world? Isn't that a WP:Bias problem?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if it is covered to a significant extent in reviews in Chinese sources it is notable. "(Though I cant myself judge in the coverage cited is significant.) Notability anywhere in the world is enough for WP. We are the WP in English, but all language versions of WP are intended as international encyclopedias. DGG (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One article is from People's Daily, one of the most popular news source in mainland China. Another is from Sina.com, one of the largest web portals in mainland China.  The third one is from newhua.com - not sure how significant the site is, but it seems to be a technology news site.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As the original deleting admin, what I do know about Chinese media suggests this may have achieved notability by our standards as non-trivial coverage. I would like to hear more from Chinese-fluent editors. Daniel Case 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to hear more about the content of those sources. Are they passing mentions, or do they have substantial coverage of this software?  What would an article written solely based on the independent and reliable sources look like?  GRBerry 16:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles are written about the software itself. Though to be honest, they read like product reviews.  Thus my weak keep vote.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Weak Keep per HongQiGong - if it's notable in China then it's notable full stop. Iain99 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, it is notable in eastern Asia, and there's no reason to delete it because it is not notable in North America or other English-speaking countries.--JForget 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't matter if the software isn't well known in the English speaking world. Also, it seems notable if several magazines have written articles about it. Alexandermiller 07:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for all u r supports. That encourage much. And much thanks to User:HongQiGong for his effort-taking works to prove the notability. Fairness528ele 16:51, 11 August 2007 (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.