Talk:Chinese sorcery scares

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbergamini.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive reliance on a single source

This is just a summary of Soulstealers, to the point where it's potentially a copyright issue. A quick google search yields no other sources on these events. If none can be found within 3 months or so, I say that this topic doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's standards of notability and should be deleted. SilverStar54 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking the same thing. The article could be saved by turning it into an article about the book. I think the content might have to be reduced though, as there may be copyright issues, as you say. Retinalsummer (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that approach. The book itself seems to be notable; there are a decent number of book reviews from academic sources and at least one or two news articles that discuss it. Apparently it was "widely read in Mainland China". SilverStar54 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]