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 no consensus. Numerous sources have been offered, but there's been very little actual discussion. Sandstein 06:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quek See Ling[edit]

Quek See Ling (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)

While she is a published author, I can find nothing to support a claim that she passes either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. If someone with skill in Chinese can validate sources, be happy to withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do let me say this is not China related discussion but Singapore. I am a Native Chinese Speaker with Both English and Chinese as my first language. I will try to analyse this article

〈2016年《联合早报》书选〉,《联合早报》,副刊第8版(新加坡,2017年1月8日)

As per WP:AUTHOR

Since WP:AUTHOR met, i don't have to go into WP:GNG where it will meet as reliable secondary sources cited it which make it notable. (I use WP:RS as a guide but focuses on Singapore consensus created list of reliable source ([1], which the few sources is clearly reliable)

Therefore, Keep --Quek157 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further recommendations - label as stub class and then some non related author can take it further. I will support a keep is based on the fact IMO meet both author / gng. but should the COI involved editor make it more advert like, we may need to block the user (no COI declaration) or rather just delete based on advert (CSD). The article needs major rewrite. And maybe chinese wiki may be more suitable but this is still notable here --Quek157 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (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.