Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linjie Chou Zanadu

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. a strongly negative BLP like s needs much stronger sourcing i DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linjie Chou Zanadu

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Google search yielded the articles that were cited - but which appears to be all press releases with no basis in reality (Baron of Xanadu? Really?) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of public relations noise, no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have further improved the article with major controversies with reliable sources. The subject meets GNG criteria. Birikhani (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think these references makes him sufficiently notable, not even as a notable charlatan. --Nlu (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the person is notable and interesting even though controversial, but that's why it makes wiki also a interesting reference site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.252.138 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baron of Xanadu? Charlatan, this person is indeed a character, the question is not the notability, looks like he got some reasonable coverages in the media. but the truth. Looks like this entry generate some heat from certain people. Being a charlatan or not is not up to any unsourced comments. But his controversial character can be more expanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandradiliges (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as their are some credible sources such as this[1] which shows the subject is note worthy. Katnimara (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is some kind of a hoax and there is no indication that the subject exists. How can I ever believe stuff like this and this? This article actually questions the credibility of the subject itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously unable to find anything here. Hoax or not, the subject is clearly not notable. I do not have enough reliable sources to verify the information, so this is a delete per WP:DEL7 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Lemongirl942 - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per good sources. per WP:GNG. also per improvements since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these "good sources"? We require significant coverage in reliable independent sources. All I see are press releases and one tabloid report. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being hoax doesn't affect the notability, enough sources have been provided. The two main attackers all sound Chinese, I wonder why Zandradiliges (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

Yes it does. We only keep notable hoaxes and we require reliable sources. I don't see any. Also "sounding Chinese" has nothing to do with notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huffingtonpost, CBS news page, and major Icelandic papers, I don't see anywhere that the sources are not reliable!!!! Zandradiliges (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This editor's only edits are to this deletion discussion and (one) to the article in question. --Nlu (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have tagged the page for speedy deletion under G3. JetBlacker (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC) JetBlacker is now blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. [reply]

And I have removed it because it was not a blatant hoax. This needs discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 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.