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. There was much discussion but little conclusion, even after four weeks and three relists. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Du English (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)

There is no significant coverage of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. The editor whose username is Z0 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added 2 more references (Still in Chinese, because they're not popular enough to have INTERNATIONAL news).台北人 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment And I couldn't find anything on Amazon Bookstore without the bookstores of Taiwan.台北人 (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@台北人: Sources do not have to be in English. Quite often that is now well understood. Sam Sailor 17:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I use some Google Translate for sources; it seems dubious they represent in-depth, reliable, independent coverage. businessweekly page seems to be an interview and that's not a high quality source, see WP:INTERVIEW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Piotrus, apart from the very obviously fact that you do not not read or write Mandarin Chinese, do you think that there are any reasons to not disregard your !vote? Sam Sailor 22:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt. search term: 阿滴英文

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

• Provisional keep. Appears to be very popular in PRC and Taiwan, judging from a search that returns 149,000+ Google News hits alone, I have added their Chinese name above. Would Flooded with them hundreds please explain this nomination? Sam Sailor 17:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor, I can't tell if they're very popular in those regions but usually a subject's notability on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not Google search results. Searching for "Ray Du English", "Atsuto Utsumi" (translated spelling of 阿滴英文) or "A Drop English" (apparent meaning of Ray Du English) brings up unhelpful sources. I don't speak Chinese so I cannot verify if the Chinese sources are legitimate. This article on zh.wiki has some sources in Chinese but looking through a bunch of them shows they appear to not constitute what is required by the general notability guideline. I can't say for certain that these sources[1][2][3][4] in the ZH article are usable in establishing notability because they do not seem reliable or independent (to me, at least). Flooded with them hundreds 17:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I don't speak Chinese so I cannot verify if the Chinese sources are legitimate. Exactly. You are judging them on the lack of English language sources, not on the available sources. Basically a useless nomination. What do you think we should do here? Sam Sailor 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've already said I've gone through the non-English sources and found that they might not constitute reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What I meant in the quoted sentence is "I'm not an expert in Chinese but judging from a Google translation these sources do not appear to be legitimate, and thus I cannot verify if they can be used in establishing notability", and it is completely appropriate to clear my doubts by bringing the article here. Flooded with them hundreds 07:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment appears to be notable, but this article suffers from poor English, which reflects poorly on them (probably unfairly). I would delete the "Introduction" section unless someone is willing to rewrite it. Timmyshin (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I couldn't find substantial coverage of reliable sources for this, and I couldn't understand the purpose / contents of the article --> Sorry I dont understand what this article is all about. Is it a song? Or is it about brother and sister? Or is it a talk show or reality TV or education channel? Or is it a video on youtube? Not sure whether it was the "English" or it simply not noted enough for it to be expanded. To me, this article fails WP:GNG -Jay (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Whjayg: If you dont [sic] understand what this article is all about, how can you possibly !vote? Sam Sailor 22:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sam Sailor: Wikipedia is meant as an encyclopedia a.k.a as a reading material for people to know what is it all about. Given that this article failed to provide information needed and; not noted enough to grant a place in here (no significant coverage of reliable sources), I voted for it to be deleted. --Jay (talk) 02:10, 30 September 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.