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. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Sheng-Yao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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

Other than the two F-News Magazine articles, there seems to be little that I can find online that gives anything verifiable about this "master," and it appears that the coverage all but died after those two articles. The article itself is filled with superlatives and unverifiable claims from what appears to me to be a promotional Web site. Not my area of expertise, but it seems like that there is something pretty wrong with the article. Delete unless something else is developed during the discussion. --Nlu (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article is over-the-top and needs a major cleanup, but the subject is definitely notable. See Michael Sullivan's Modern Chinese Artists: A Biographical Dictionary. -Zanhe (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the primary contributor of this article and a PhD in Chinese Art History, Chan Sheng-Yao is considered as a significant artist in the field with many publications dedicated to his artwork in both Chinese and English. As mentioned above and in the article, many notable scholars in the field of Chinese Art History such as Emily Tsai, Chu-Tsing Li, Michael Sullivan, Philip Wu, have written about his work. Unfortunately, many sources of Chan’s work and publications are not available on the Internet and I tried to connect as many links to online articles and mentions of his work that I could, including recent events such as his lectures at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and Loyola University. To further compensate, I had reproduced some of the prefaces (in Chinese and English) written by others from publications that I was unable to find online links for. Taking into consideration reviewer comments, I have removed these reproduced prefaces. All remaining content and links are now verified and direct links have been drawn from these third party articles and publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjso (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain - These two books are the only references I'm seeing, though I'm wondering if there are references available in Chinese that I can't read. This seems strange. Regardless of the question of notability, the article is a mess, as per the above description. Giving a lecture at SAIC is not really something that is appropriate for an entry.Theredproject (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Theredproject: Several books have been published about his art in Chinese, including Tsai 2003 mentioned in Sullivan's book cited above. Another was published by Providence University in 2004. PU has a page about him, see here (in Chinese). -Zanhe (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient reliable Chinese sources out there to establish notability.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:32, 1 May 2015 (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.