Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi De Li
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shi De Li (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)
An IP editor placed an "official statement" claiming that this person is a fraud. See [1]. I've removed the IP's edits as potentially defamatory, but it does raise a substantial question as to whether the claims in this article are legitimate and whether this person is notable. As it stands, as I can't be sure and this is not my area of expertise, mild delete. I hope more knowledgeable editors will respond. --Nlu (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I couldn't find sources with significant independent coverage of him, at least in English. It seems like there should be lots of coverage of him in Chinese, but that's out of my knowledge zone. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I agree with the previous editor. It seems like he should be notable, but there's a lack of sources to support that claim (at least in English). Astudent0 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2012 (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.