Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsai Rong Tsang

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 delete. No prejustice against recreation if additional/better sources are found. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsai Rong Tsang[edit]

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

No third party reliable source evidence of notability. Google search shows up reduplications of this WP article and a few blog entries. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom, more or less. GNews, GScholar turn up zilch in terms of reliable sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete until someone with Chinese language expertise who hasn't edited the article extensively voices an opinion. Icetea8 below raises a valid rebuttal. Those characters appear quite a bit in a Google search. I probably shouldn't have voted in the first place. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, try search include Chinese name 蔡榮章, icetea8 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i will also strike my vote, because i have been a contributor to the article.

Comment It would be great to have someone else with Chinese language expertise weigh in. Again, an English Google search shows up reduplications of this WP article and a few blog entries, but no sign of notability. The article itself has six references/external links. Four of them are self-published/non-independent, e.g., they are from his own college or institute. There is an article on Taipei's Philosophical Tea Masters, where he is interviewed in one paragraph, as the third of four interviewees. Interestingly, this article refers to his Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute as the "upstairs of a shop." Finally, there is a short article in Chinese--one paragraph. I don't see how this meets WP:BASIC or WP:PROF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Logical Cowboy's comments. The sourcing and interest is just not there to verify from an English speaker's standpoint. Ray^Talk 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources need to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2011 (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.