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. There is only one real argument for deleting here which is a failure to meet WP:GNG and since sources have been added there is consensus that she satisfies this guideline. Michig (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yilin Zhong[edit]

Yilin Zhong (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)

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

Not sure if she passes WP:BIO, article has a promotional tone, and is difficult to understand. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Also unconvinced she is notable. Needs more than lots of Amazon page ranks which can be temporary and generally are unverifiable. Could just be the lack of English language coverage though, there seems a lot more in Chinese which I’m ill equipped to evaluate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh, I tried to convince the author to use AfC, but I guess they ignored that advice and moved it back to mainspace... The article was speedy deleted at Yilin Zhong previously, but I feel the AfD should run its course now. The article, while promotional, really doesn't rise to the G11 level. No comment on notability at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- As I talked to ThaddeusB I am totally confused here. I am not a wiki person and really cannot understand what you guys are talking about. As I said, if any parts of this article is wrong, please just delete them or revise it. I have no idea how to meet your requirements so please just change it as you like. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptynow (talk • contribs) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. I couldn't find significant coverage in Chinese sources. ([1][2]) These two sources ([3][4]) in the article were written by her, not about her.--Antigng (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Antigng, thanks for your search effort. the first search was with the traditional Chinese words and this language was not used in mainland China so there is nothing by that search. But it looks like that if someone published 10 books but cannot find an interview online, then he is not existed on wiki. e.g. the CCTV (China's Central TV Station) interview for her first book was broadcasting in 1996 when China has no internet yet, so we cannot find it by google at all. So were those books published before 2000 when Amazon launched in China and then there was no source online as well. I don't know what to say now. Emptynow (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails the GNG, pure and simple--- whether sources might exist doesn't matter, it's whether it's provable that they do. I recommend to Emptynow that if he doesn't know what Wikipedia requires for creating an article, reviewing the links at WP:PILLAR is a good way to start. Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Ok, you guys pushed me spending five hours today to find those very limited online sources from 2000 in Chinese website. Done. and exhausted. I think this is the end of my contribution to this article no matter what happens next. Thank you guys. Good night. Emptynow (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the recently added Chinese language sources appear to be sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to have significant refs .. unless can be proved to be self-promotional should keep. May be more notable in the Chinese community but still notable. --Len (talk) 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Change to keep. Some of these sources meet our standard. Antigng (talk) 05:30, 14 March 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.