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. Biblioworm 17:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xiangling Zheng[edit]

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

While the person appears to sufficiently notable, the article was clearly written to be self-promotional. (A corresponding Chinese Wikipedia article was deleted for copyright violation, not for lack of notability, but I think that nevertheless should be noted.) The claims in the article are not easily verifiable, and the claims in the external links appear to be incredible. This is one of those situations where, "I am not sure exactly what ground for deletion I'm asserting as such, other than that I know a deletable article when I see it." Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but maybe delete for now as a WP:TNT at best as Books and Highbeam found some links but not much better. Pinging past users Bearcat and Largoplazo and also Chinese user Deryck Chan. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I ever did here was an automated tagging run for a routine maintenance issue, and I have nothing whatsoever to offer about the content or her notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a personal CV, not an encyclopedia article. Citobun (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend delete without prejudice against recreation of a better article. I've found enough sources and am convinced that she's notable: detailed biographical coverage [1][2][3] (all interviews by local news agencies and institutions that she's been involved with - qualify for WP:LOCAL) and some more run-of-the-mill coverage about her business activities and opinions she's given to the media: [4][5][6]. But the article is in such a state that I'd recommend WP:TNT for now, as I don't think any significant portion of it will remain if the article is rewritten to an acceptable state. Der yck C. 12:06, 2 November 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.