Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Yin

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Yin[edit]

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

The sourcing is not bad, and maybe notability requirements are met. But I'm nominating this to get a second opinion from other Wikipedians about a BLP article about a minor that was evidently created by a single-purpose editor who very likely has a conflict of interest in creating this article. I would worry less about this if the article subject were already an adult. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She meets notability guidelines, the article is fairly well sourced and there is no obviously promotional tone or POV editing. The fact that the article was created by a single purpose account with a COI is not a reason to delete it. I don't think there is anything to worry about here in regards to BLP or the fact that she is a child, especially considering there is nothing negative or controversial included. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The reference style here hides the source of the references, and most are not RS. Six are Youtube or blogs; 2 are art advertising sites; 3 are local announcements of events; the remainder appear to be promotional. What I don't find is anything from the art world - that is, no major museums or galleries. These two sisters are highly promoted, but may be just a flash in the pan. LaMona (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real strong WP:RS for this person. --Artene50 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the sources are unreliable, but between the reliable sources currently cited and what I'm seeing with even a cursory search, there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:BIO. She's been interviewed on Chinese television multiple times, it appears, and featured in other seemingly reliable video sources like THNKR. For print sources, between what is cited and reliable (China Daily, CNTV, a couple local papers, a magazine profile..) and the uncited sources I found in a matter of a couple minutes (Daily Beast, Art Business News 1 2 (via HighBeam), PsychCentral/The Creative Mind, Visual News -- in decreasing order of reliability, I suppose), it appears to me that sufficient sources exist to justify inclusion on WP:BIO grounds. That's further strengthened by the fact that several sources appear to be Chinese and thus behind a language barrier. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Per LaMona. Poor sourcing. May be a case of Too Soon. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rhododendrites I looked up "Art Business News" (I don't have access to Highbeam) and it is a purely marketing publication, per its own promotion: "Provides industry news, marketing matters and emerging trends that drive sales for art publishers, galleries, solo artists and art-related business." I would therefore not consider that a RS. Daily Beast, PsychCentral and VisualNews all are what I think of as "collective blogs". So I still think we haven't uncovered a truly reliable, third-part source. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Despite the filibustering from other editors saying page was evidently created by a single-purpose editor who very likely has a conflict of interest, i.e. Zoe's mom? in creating this article. I don't buy it. I would worry less about this if the article subject were she were older and in the adult movie industry. Please keep for now --Chan12345 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SPA and COI aren't my concern. Could you please address the issue of reliable sources that I brought up above? LaMona (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reliable sources found by Rhododendrites. The Daily Beast has editorial oversight; its article provides substantial coverage of the subject. This Chinese-language article from Sina Corp and this Chinese-language article from China News Service also discuss the subject (she is referenced by her Chinese name 尹亮景).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zoe Yin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2014 (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.