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. Notability not established. Absent a clear consensus to keep, non notable or marginally notable BLPs should be deleted. Therefore delete. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qu Xin

[edit]

Nearly all of the claims of notability are themselves redlinks, which calls into question how notable the accomplishments were. Unless further notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found. While sourcing foreign language stuff always raises 'system bias' problems, the fact that the only english language sources found are self-promo articles on ebay and a dating website suggest that this may just be a case of non-notabilty Bfigura ^(talk) 03:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, seems fairly non notable unless we can establish sources. Even the Chinese article appears very short. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Berig (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:17, 15 April 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.