The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no sources. No claim of notability apart from reported user count, which is of dubious value. It may be that this is notable in China; brought to AfD to establish notability one way or another. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 10:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've word counted some randomly selected articles from Google News archive, translated with Google Translate:
According to WP:GNG sources do not have to be in English. These alone are sufficient to satisfy the Wikipedia requirements and there are hundreds more articles like this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY requires, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."
I understand that we have procedures for dealing with non-English sources WP:NOENG but here's what it says: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." I think this contemplates translating a few sentences, not whole articles.
We are not building a Chinese wiki, we are building an English wiki. I can see using Chinese sources as citations for a few of the claims but I cannot see writing an entire article based on them. I also cannot see using the Chinese sources as some sort sham evidence of notability but then writing the whole article from primary sources because those are the only ones anyone can read. Msnicki (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I will add that to me, the complaints of possible bias looked more like examples of it than anything else. For me, it wouldn't have mattered if the sources were in the one other language I can read (sort of); I'd still have had the same concerns. And I agreed with the "better in China" remark as I understood it, namely, a wry, ironic observation that it'd be a simpler question if the resulting article was supposed to be in Chinese as well, the same as the sources. We should be able to talk about these things without chilling the room. I'd have appreciated better demonstration of WP:AGF. Msnicki (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]