Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The First Intimate Contact

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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The First Intimate Contact

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reviews to demonstrate notability; seems to fail WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is mentioned in multiple sources ([1][2]) as one of the earliest web novels in China and has been adapted as a film. It is also reviewed in multiple research papers ([3][4][5]). It seems to pass WP:NBOOK criteria 1 and criteria 3. @Mikeblas:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the general notability guideline based on the sources cited above plus the other seven in the Chinese Wikipedia article. Needs expansion though. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems like a local self-published article and the author is irritated that someone else appears to have plagiarized its content. The article contains no references that suggest notability and I find nothing online that suggests any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paucity of references in English because it is a Chinese phenomena, which doesn't make it any the less notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources on Chinese Wikipedia plus noted above. -- GreenC 04:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NBOOK.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.