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.

Who created the article and why is not relevant outside WP:G5 which does not apply here; neither is potential canvassing, if one really thought the limited message to a single editor constitutes canvassing (it doesn't).

Multiple non-sock editors argued that this article meets the notability guideline while the delete !voters can be summarized as WP:VAGUEWAVE (Exemplo347, Force Radical) and WP:UGLY (Techyan) without actually discussing the sources provided in the context of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Regards SoWhy 07:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silu Wang (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)

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Article was deleted under WP:A7, but recreated. Citobun (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A page on the subject was previously created by WP:SPA account Michaeljwei and speedy-deleted; it has now been recreated by another WP:SPA, James19792017. The various recent press items such as the China Daily profile/Q&A begins to contribute towards notability, though I see these as an early-career items. The article text is effectively a CV and again is indicative of no more than a working musician in early-career. At this point, I do not think WP:MUSICBIO notability is demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Google her name in Chinese "王丝路 钢琴" (Silu Wang Piano) has returned 823,000 results. She was reported by several major Chinese media, including China Daily, Sohu, Sohu Music, huanqiu, UC News, China.com.cn. She is young and in her early-career stage, but these doesn't make her less notable. As a classical music fan, I know some of the competitions are indeed very high standard. e.g. the “CMB - Sunflower” National Youth Piano Competition is the biggest in China with over 20000 competitors in 2016, and the SpringBoard International Concerto Competition is very famous in the UK. Sadly, the only Chinese pianist most people know is Lang Lang. Those other young pianists are equally talented. 82.132.228.146 (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — 82.132.228.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Do you have a reliable source regarding prominence of the Springboard Concerto competition? It appears to be part of Brighton & Hove Performing Arts Festival, held in a school hall, with a first prize of £100 and "not restricted to amateur performers" [1]. AllyD (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • For piano competitions, cash prize is not the most important criteria. A quick search of the Springboard competition shows adjudicators are all famous musicians. --Michaeljwei (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Agree with AllyD that this article does look like a CV of the pianist. But all artists wiki articles are effectively CVs. As long as contents are referenced from valid sources, it should be kept. Based on references of current version of this article: Jinling Evening News is top 10 daily news paper in China with circulation of 1.2 million; China Daily is one of the biggest Chinese state-run media (like BBC in the UK) with circulation of 0.5 million (English paper version). Huanqiu, another major Chinese state media with circulation of 1.5 million (Chinese Edition) + 0.2million (English Edition). And every Chinese knows Sohu as one of China's biggest online services provider. --Michaeljwei (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC) — Michaeljwei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All your edits (on both English and Chinese Wikipedia) revolve around the article subject. Please review WP:PROMOTION – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion. Furthermore, in accordance with WP:PAID, if you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. Citobun (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to assault me personally instead of focusing on the content of the article. No one paid me. I just felt frustrated that my first ever contribution on wiki was treated unfairly despite the fact that I followed all the guidances that I know of. I am new and probably not as experienced as yourself. But you cannot accuse me as a paid promotor. Who would pay a newly registered wiki user? BTW, I did contribute to the Chinese wiki article but I have no idea who created that article originally. Please do not abuse your power as an experienced wiki user. Of course I will try my best to fight for wikipedia fairness --Michaeljwei (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaeljwei. Citobun (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the AfD, as I cannot review the reported Chinese-language sources, but some folks are reminded to review WP:AGF and WP:BITE when contemplating applicable policy. Advocata (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original discussion WP:MUSICBIO - Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles， Silu Wang satisfies at least the following:

• 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
  • She had major Chinese media coverage.

• 9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
  • She won prize in several major music competitions.

• 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.
  • She performed for a film sponsored by British Film Institute. --Michaeljwei (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. WP:TOOSOON is when topics are not verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. In this case, any one of of the three criteria will make her an eligible notable musician. She satisfies all three, with verifiable independent sources. According to Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, if you believe this is a WP:TOOSOON case, you are basically saying 1. all those media covered her including Chinese state media are insignificant, and 2. all those competitions are insignificant, and 3. films sponsored by BFI is insignificant. --Michaeljwei (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources in Chinese appear sufficient to clear the notability bar. It's true that the article looks like a CV but that's not a reason for deletion. Pichpich (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer Pichpich was canvassed to !vote in this discussion by the article's creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That invitation to participate in this AfD was completely neutral. Nothing wrong with that. Pichpich (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article has nothing else but a lead section made by only one sentence and a timeline which is not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. It does have enough references, which shows that this article would have enough notability. But the style of it seems like an autobiography or a fansite. --Techyan（Talk） 08:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you do agree that this article does meet notability criteria but needs reformatting, I believe you may want to change your vote to Keep or Weak Keep? --Michaeljwei (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article does need cleanup but if you agree that the topic is sufficiently notable, you should be in favour of keepimg it. Please remember that deletion is not cleanup. Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails notability. WP:toosoon applies .Come Back 5 years later if singer become notable.PS:Adding A SPI investigation about these 3 editors FORCE RADICAL (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• notability evidences have been clearly provided as above. Three notability criteria apply. Have you even read comments above? I created the original article and was speed deleted. I am NOT an editor of this newly created article. I am helping to keep this article because the pianist does meet all criteria therefore it is not fair to delete this article.--Michaeljwei (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please don't answer every single !vote, Michaeljwei. Take a step back and let this discussion run its course. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided by Michaeljwei clearly demonstrate that Silu Wang passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. She has received substantial coverage in China Daily, Sohu, Huanqiu Shibao, and China Internet Information Center.

  The article largely is neutral and contains only facts. Any non-neutral wording is minor and can be handled through editing the article instead of deleting it. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

  Cunard (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bbb23 (talk · contribs) confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaeljwei that the named accounts Michaeljwei (talk · contribs) and James19792017 (talk · contribs) are likely the same person. Of the two, only Michaeljwei has participated in this AfD.

  Forceradical (talk · contribs) later added Pichpich (talk · contribs) to the list of suspected sockpuppets even though it is very unlikely and there is no evidence that Pichpich, an established editor, is the same person as Michaeljwei.

  Bbb23, after Forceradical's change, this makes your "The two named accounts are Likely" comment ambiguous. Would you consider clarifying your comment on the page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Forceradical's rather clumsy addition occurred days after I posted my finding. Therefore, it wasn't ambiguous at the time. I have updated the SPI to reject Forceradical's allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the SPI, Bbb23 (talk · contribs). I agree that your comment was not ambiguous when you posted it. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Exemplo347. I wanted to follow your advice and try not to reply, but facing such an accusation again, I think I should say something. As a new wikipedia user, I find it very odd that instead of focusing on the content of the article and check it's authenticity, some people started attacking all editors of this article and everyone who voted Keep. Although I believe that has nothing to do with if this article should be kept or not, please allow me to say again, I am not James19792017 (talk · contribs). Dear Bbb23 (talk · contribs), could you please clarify why do you think we are "Likely" the same person?--Michaeljwei (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michaeljwei (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#CheckUser. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CunardBbb23Sorry for my rather clumsy allegation.I did so because as said be Exemplo above he canvassed for Techyans vote which struck me as suspicions .It was my error that I in that spur of a moment forgot to check the contributions log.Please don't mistake it for bad faith.FORCE RADICAL (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2017 (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.