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 speedy keep. Notability has been convincingly demonstrated, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Chung-ling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The article is very vage and there is only one reference without any proper notiballity.No references and it just says translation which can not be confurmed by english users. The translated article also does not have any references in its own country. Its019 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable as per WP:GNG, as many sources can be found in a Chinese search. Now adding and cleaning. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Minister of Defense is an important post, and the information is verifiable by reliable sources, see Taipei Times, South China Morning Post etc. In my opinion, the subject is notable enough to meet WP:POLITICIAN. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being the Minister of Defense for a country normally guarantees that a person is notable for Wikipedia purposes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is not properly written, but the subject matter is clearly notable. --Nlu (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable in accordance with WP:GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A general and government minister. What exactly is non-notable about this man? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Actual government Minister. The nom brought up reasons for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hate to make this more SNOWy, but he was in an incredibly significant position--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per WP:POLITICIAN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:56, 21 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.