Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiyangbao

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 merge to The Vancouver Sun. Sandstein 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyangbao[edit]

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

fails WP:WEB. no extensive indepth coverage. [1]. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention Taiyangbao on The Vancouver Sun. PK T(alk) 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Vancouver Sun. Warden (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, why can't it be improved as per editing policy? LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an improvement. Taiyangbao is a Chinese language edition of the same newspaper and so it makes sense to bring them together. This is the English language Wikipedia and so we shouldn't have foreign language forks of content. Warden (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Vancouver Sun per Warden. There is some decent information and sources here, but it would make a lot more sense to include the information with the article on the publication that this is just a different language version of. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Vancouver Sun, per WP:WEB. IMO it's too soon for a standalone article, demonstrated by the limited number of sources currently included in the article. -- Trevj (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (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.