Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyce Ching

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Ching

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

Has already been deleted twice, A7, BLPPROD and the BLPPROD template was removed this time round without any refs being added, so lets do this the full way. Prove that she is notable by supplying reliable sources, or delete it. The-Pope (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough of a career yet to meet WP:NACTOR. -- BenTels (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Needs sources, yes... but it appears do-able. It would seem that this actress meets WP:ENT by getting significant roles in notable (Phillipine) productions. GMA News writes about her, but they are not exactly independent. The PEP has an article that covers her directly and in depth. Manila Sun Star writes of her at depth. Surely there is more. What we need is some input from Filipino Wikipedians with access to sources not available in the West. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that being a BLP of a minor should be grounds for delete and salt unless a fully sourced & BLP policy compliant draft was checked by an admin. How long does this charade have to go on for. As the deletion templates were constantly being ignored, removed etc, and technically the BLPPROD could have still been applied, I instead chose this route to get more "certainty" in the outcome, but instead of ten days, it's now lasted 14, with the chance of 21.The-Pope (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC) (Not sure why my edit cut out half way through... but as the bare minimum referencing has been added, I guess it's all moot now)[reply]

Keep as I have added two sources, one of which was suggested by User:MichaelQSchmidt above. I'd like to point out that BLP PROD templates "may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" (WP:BLPPROD). Normal PROD templates can be removed by anyone at any time. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate evidence for meeting ENT. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty good sourcing now. She's in as large a TV market as UK, France, or Germany, and has had leading roles. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2010 (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.