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. T. Canens (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Xu[edit]

Bob Xu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. Just like the articles on his company, ZhenFund (afd, and it's other founder, Victor Wang (Angel Investor) (afd, both created by the same SPA, there is a lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. A look at the current sourcing. zh.wikipedia.org and Baidu Baike are openly collaborative wiki encyclopedias, not a reliable sources. Forbes is just a listing. crunchbase is just a database listing. celeb.uname.cn is listing on a celebrity website, not a reliable source. newss.qq.com is a short 3 sentence mention, lacks any depth of coverage. This is just poorly sourced promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as my searches found nothing better, here, here, here and here. CorporateM Maybe you missed it but this AfD was mentioned at ZhenFund's AfD, maybe you'd like to comment (simply for consistency)? SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hopelessly promotional No opinion on notability, which is hard to assess when the sources are in another language. But there is not a sufficient amount of well-sourced, encyclopedic content in the current article for there to be anything worth keeping here. CorporateM (Talk) 06:06, 18 August 2015 (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.