Mable Lu Miao: Amigao ( talk ) 23:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , Business , Education ,  and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  There are twelve books listed; what has the nominator done to check that they lack reviews, especially not in English?  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 03:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - thus far I have found three books with reviews, one of them with multiple reviews in academic journals.  As I suspect there are more, I will keep working on this one.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 10:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have been unable to find additional reviews.  She appears in the Chinese media, but beyond Google translate I don't have the ability to evaluate those or find new sources.  DaffodilOcean ( talk ) 11:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  The multiple reviews for multiple books now added to the article are enough for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR for me but it's only weak because the number is still low and most of them are for an edited volume rather than an authored work.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ David Eppstein : I am a bit unclear how edited volumes should count towards WP:NAUTHOR since that clearly doesnt seem to be the spirit of the guidelines.  In most fields I am aware of, the editor of a book (and I have seen this process from the inside) selects multiple people to contribute and usually contributes a single chapter to the book themselves, which is generally as long as a single journal article.  Therefore editing a book is very different from writing a book since editing one basically involves the conceptual work of identifying a theme but letting people express their own thoughts (usually there is very little editorial input on the text itself and the main contribution is selecting the contribution and contributing author to cover a topic in breadth and depth).  Still, I would argue that the contribution for an edited volume is a bit more than a journal article but nowhere near comparable to a original book.  I am therefore somewhat skeptical in "bending" the NAUTHOR rules to apply to editors of books.  Yes, being asked to edit a book can be a sign of distinction but not a very strong signal, especially given the large number of books being published.  -- hroest 13:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only one of the three reviewed books is edited.  The other two are authored.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 02:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The user "Amigao" has been publicly flagged as editing Wikipedia entries with an anti-China bias at an industrial scale.  Although the complaints were not made by the best reputable sources, the description is worth considering.  The contributions by "Amigao" are enormous - the user edits tons of stuff on a daily basis!  So is that a shared account, which violates Wikipedia rules?  You can also look at the talk page of "Amigao", which lists many well-established grievances against the user.  Therefore it's no surprise that "Amigao" initiates a deletion of a Wikipedia entry that doesn't reflect badly on China.  74.211.96.51 ( talk ) 10:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : agree with David Eppstein comments above.  I think the sources in the article (eg: Book reviews [25] , [26] ) put this past the finish line.  In addition no one has indicated they did a search for non-English sources for reviews of their work as brought up by Espresso Addict.  Looking at the article, everything seems sourced reasonably for a BLP.  The noms comment regarding this being "Highly promotional" is very questionable.  // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 21 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep