Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Zhou

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, following work by Rhododendrites. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Zhou[edit]

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

Self-promotion. A primary contributor is User:周玲安. Mys_721tx (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not start this article. The editor who created this article as "BettyZhou" is Jqcc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor has been notified of this discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as, although the list of sources, none of the current article suggests even minimally better notability and improvement here, with my searches also finding nothing better than what seemed to be mostly passing mentions. Nothing compelling to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Obvious self-promotion, but googling her Chinese name reveals that she has some recognizability among die-hard NBA fans in China. Her Chinese social media pages also demonstrate quite a following (e.g. Instagram Sina Weibo). Keep page if all the junk on the page can be weeded out; I do realize it's much easier said than done. Timmyshin (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete WP:TNT. Der yck C. 21:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revise She is very notable in China. However the page is too detailed for a character like her. Unsourced and unverified contents should be deleted. Ueutyi (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now -she only has one notable credit and its for a minor role. Looks like she will be hosting her own series, but I think this article is getting ahead of itself and is way too grand/promotional -it should be a single paragraph and a filmography if anything at all Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If my mom were also my publicist, she would write the sort of article that existed at the time of nomination. That said, there are nearly sufficient sources in English to justify WP:BIO, and it looks like there are a whole lot of non-English sources such that I'm confident she's notable. I cut it from 54,000 bytes of gushing to 3,500 bytes of basic information, then added a bit. In other words, I effectively carried out a WP:TNT (perhaps those leaning towards that outcome would reconsider?). Is it a good article? Not particularly, no. But I think she's a notable person, the article no longer contains any unsourced or promotional material, and it seems worth keeping as it stands. I'll keep it on my watchlist, though, because holy crap. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mys 721tx, SwisterTwister, Deryck Chan, and Burroughs'10: does your position change any, given my quasi-TNT? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per well needed deletions performed by Rhododendrites. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new version by User:Rhododendrites. Thank you. Der yck C. 11:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhodendendrites -- good work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new version satisfies notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Also because of "Sensual NBA." Really?TheBlueCanoe 23:36, 11 January 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.