Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janice Man

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. —fetch ·comms 01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Man[edit]

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

This article has no reliable independent sources. It describes a generic publicity-seeker. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that WP:ENT is being followed with regard to significant roles. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fifty pages of vomit-inducing GNews hits from major newspapers such as Ming Pao about her every move, outfit, catfight with other models, etc.: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I won't dispute the nominator's description of her as a "publicity seeker", but she rises well above the level of "generic", having taken advantage of all that publicity from her modelling to land major roles in Hong Kong movies. I added a few citations; will keep working on it later. cab (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in the area per above, although wouldn't deny her as publicity seeker as that's pretty much all she does (personal opinion). Dengero (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per apparently overwheming the WP:GNG with coverage since 2002.[1] With the sheer number of sources available, one might conclude that concerns with style, tone, or sourcing can be improved though regular editing... and will simply take a bit of work and someone proficiant in translating. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 23 July 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.