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 speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Pang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

local failure Yotemordis (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your opinion on the subject notwithstanding, could you please convey an argument for deletion that is in accordance with the deletion policy? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wēi ěr mǎ páng ain't got no good sources baby!Yotemordis (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is adequately sourced and no valid argument has been made for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has not achieved anything and has very little notability.Yotemordis (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bad faith nomination.  --Lambiam 01:14, 14 June 2011 (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.