Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xing Xin

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. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xing Xin[edit]

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

WP:COI, (evidence). Also those two users also engaged in cross-wiki spam on Chinese Wikipedia. Mys 721tx (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indulgent dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. His piece at the Venice Biennale may actually be notable [1] [2]. But the article as it stands is in such bad shape that WP:TNT may be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Need I remind people that neither a conflict of interest nor an article being "indulgent dross" are reasons for deletion? I would agree with David Eppstein that the article may require a complete rewrite to bring it up to standards, but articles in the LA Times, Il Giornale, Express India and Telegraph and possibly some Chinese-language publications establish notability as does the artist's exhibition record. There appear to be a number of other WP:RSs that further help pass both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The conflict of interest can be dealt with and the "dross" can be edited out. If the book Personal Structures: Time-Space-Existence can be verified to include substantial material on the artist (I can't find a table of contents or index online), that would also go towards firmly establishing notability but I believe that is already established by the other sources available. freshacconci talk to me 15:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Credible sources that establish notability. Elfpunk (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese Baike http://baike.baidu.com/view/2866215.htm demonstrates significant, multiply-referenced coverage on individual whose anti-government stance would normally be grounds for suppression of information. Photos ; videos ; massive media coverage by China.-165.132.180.167 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2013 (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.