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. MBisanz ^talk 10:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Xiao-Min[edit]

Feng Xiao-Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was clearly created by the non-notable subject themselves. (COI and CSD:A7) The COI Is obvious. It has lacked, at any time in it's life, any assertions to the notability of the subject. ~Pip 11:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• SEE BELOW Speedy Delete as A7, and I tagged it for such. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 12:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above. And the article is basically just junk that doesn't even rise to the level of advertisement: "...fusing serenity, contemplation and beauty with the yearning of the human heart" Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject appears notable, and more information is available in the French interwiki link (and presumably the Chinese link, which I can't read). It's clear that the artist himself created the article, that he has the idée fixe that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to puff his talent, and that his behavior is discourteous (repeatedly reverting other editors). But these factors shouldn't determine how we regard the article itself. — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the English article is obviously inadequate, but the frWP has the necessary list of exhibitions and publications that might well show notability and support the claims. So I copied them in. The language needs a little adjustment, but not much. And, more important, there seem to be two reviews. The reviews are quite enough to totally prevent speedy, and in my opinion enough for notability. I wonder in the nom. & the per noms actually looked at the other language articles. Even if one can read neither, its enough to indicate there's material for an article here. DGG (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequately sourced BLP. RMHED (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change from SD to weak keep DGG has done a WP:HEY job on the article, although I would feel much warmer and fuzzier if there were some inline citations. It is at the point now that notability IS established (barely), and it still needs most of the tags it has. At least part of my vote should be tax deductable as charity. I am taking John Z's word (see article history) that the French version of the article is somewhat better, and we can't be snobs and insist on sources in English only. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Dlohcierekim 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability now well established. WilyD 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETEin all versions. For lack of independent sources. SYSS Mouse (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Problems with WP:V and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Autobio/cv. Adding a list of awards would help to establish notability. --Vsion (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article doesn't establish any notability (says he's an artist and has had shows) and includes no references. It also needs to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2008 (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.