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. Seems consensus that suitable sources are in place and that NPOL is satisfied by the position (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsai Ling-yi[edit]

Tsai Ling-yi (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)

Failed to meet notability criterion. It's gonna be awesome!Talk♬ 18:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Length or lack thereof is not a good rationale for deletion. Deletion is usually the last resort for articles. In any case, a well-executed WP:BEFORE would have led to WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL, as well as the reliable sources added by Neo-Jay. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:17, 4 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.