Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Y. Qiu

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 and condemn to the hoax museum. ^Complex/_Rational 22:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Y. Qiu[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This orphaned biography was created by an SPA in 2013 and both the content and the sourcing looked dubious to me. I asked at WikiProject China for someone able to verify the sources in the article and look for others. I’m very grateful to User:Folly Mox for their source analysis which I won’t repeat but can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Katherine Y. Qiu. This article is likely to be a hoax, or at best a completely garbled account, possibly of more than one person. Mccapra (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, Politics, and China. Mccapra (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks in return for Mccapra surfacing this hoax article. In brief, all the sources fail verification. What should be the strongest source does not exist. The article makes a number of highly dubious claims, including what might be a BLP violation against Qin Hui (historian). The early article history displays signs of deliberate manufacture prior to spurious sourcing, including modifying and removing claims.
WP:BEFORE did find a person by this name roughly contemporaneous with the purported subject, who published on a similar topic to the final source in the article, which is spuriously misattributed. None of the biographical details in the article match the real person.
There's nothing worth salvaging here since everything is made up. Probably qualifies for CSD G3, see linked discussion for full thoughts. Folly Mox (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Many thanks for discovering this. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax per Folly Mox's thorough investigation. Kanguole 20:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per linked source analysis from Folly Mox, fails WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with thanks to those who discovered this apparent hoax. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 January 2024 (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.