Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poesy Liang

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 Draftify. It's not clear that draftify is even a legitimate way to close an AfD, per WP:AFD/AI, but when have we ever let that stop us? But, even among the people arguing to keep, moving this to draft space where it can get a major overhaul, seems to be what most people think is best. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poesy Liang[edit]

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

Besides being written like an advert, I have serious problems with the notability of the page. It follows the same argument as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helping Angels.

From the "Sources" list (no in-line citations): #1 is 404. #2 Personal site. #3 and #4 are not found. #5 is an organization's site which may be connected to Poesy. #6 is a top-level link to her jewelry site. #7 video interview is dead. #8 and #9 are affiliated sites. #10 and #11 don't list Poesy Liang anywhere. #12 and #13 are dead. #14, #15, #16, and #17 are presumably saved interviews from her website, but those are not found also. #18 is a list of tips from Facebook users. #19 is a personal blog. #20, #21, #22 are dead. #23 is Poesy's personal site. #24 has nothing to do with her and #25 is a link to answers.com search. #26 and #28 are gone, and #27 is dead. #29 is a private blog. #30 and #33 are dead. #31, #32 are 404. #34 is actually a working video, but one television segment isn't enough for notability.

In short, there is not a single reliable source for this article. Thus I am nominating this article for my first AfD. Wqwt (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Wqwt (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Wqwt (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do enough references exist online to extablish notability? Currently it appears the references included in the article aren't enough, but there appear to be others e.g

https://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/01/201079/champion-life

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/07/29/helping-people-see-the-light-through-artworks-in-the-dark/

https://vulcanpost.com/581171/5-malaysians-beat-cancer/

https://www.coindesk.com/art-bitcoin-inspiration-personal-finance/

If this is not established I suggest the article is 'draftified' as more sources may be published or found to establish notability in the future.

John Cummings (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't find any online resources that indicates she meets WP:ARTIST. And even if draftified, the article needs serious cleanup since WP:NOTPROMO. Wqwt (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Draftify is OK too. I did a web search before looking at the article. I saw four good news sources, and many other miscellaneous sources. So, WP:EXIST. She meets GNG, but not CREATIVE. The article needs a very large haircut, ironically.104.163.147.121 (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what WP:EXIST is, since it doesn't link to anything. But maybe she passes GNG with a serious article cleanup to add reliable sources. Wqwt (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, I meant WP:NEXIST, meaning sources are out there somewhere.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough reliable sources have been identified to enable WP:GNG to be passed but the article needs serious work and as its a blp perhaps it should be drafted or userfied if improvement doesn't come soon Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Draftify. This is a tempting place for applying WP:TNT, except for the fact that the New Straits Times and other articles demonstrate that the subject is, in fact, notable. That said, the article violates all three points of the WP:CCPOL and should be removed from mainspace immediately. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Who is actively working on this article so as to justify the move to draftspace, per consensus? If no one, it should be either kept based on sources or deleted for WP:TNT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 13:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got a kick out of WP:TNT. The current article has a section on swimming to train her legs and her "most significant claim to poetry". Wqwt (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to draft space so article can be cleaned up. Hmlarson (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems there are enough articles to establish notatbility, Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (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.