Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetic encyclopaedist school

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. Try http://writersdiet.com/?page_id=4 czar 08:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic encyclopaedist school

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

... but finding actual sources requires looking for the Chinese name 百科诗派 of which a better translation would be "Encyclopedic poetry school" (disclaimer: I don't actually speak Chinese) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable literary group. Self-promotional JMHamo (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-promotional gibberish. I defy anyone to make any actual sense of a noun phrase like: "Macroscopic concept of parallel universes and microscopic definition of parallel genders, capacity expanding of “vessels”, methods to detect breakthrough points in remix of physics, chemistry, biology, geography, geology, psychology, calligraphy, photography, musicology, geometry, atmospheric science, and information sciences in epic poetry, which acted as an icebreaker of stagnation in sexual notions and consequently leads to and disruption of old orthodoxy." Until someone writes something in comprehensible English about this group, no grounds for notability. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No convincing evidence of notability. I would have expected a google search on the 3 words Chinese Poetry Encyclop(a)edic/st (ie 4 variations) -Wikipedia to come up with some mention by non-Chinese critics or scholars, but nothing found. PamD 09:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hot mess that needs to be destroyed. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2016 (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.