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. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ying compestine

[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the refs are self spawned despite their grand titles. Promotional advertorial content. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above the sources are suspect at best. I could not locate additional references to verify the subjects notability. Comatmebro (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage can be found - http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Ying-Chang-Compestine-revisits-the-Cultural-2499273.php and http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/31/268926416/for-a-twist-on-the-lunar-new-year-dumpling-add-green-tea - and reviews of her books; an article about her novel Revolution is Not a Dinner Party has existed since 2011. Peter James (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the two very reliable sources given by Peter James. Regardless of anything else, those two clearly show general notability. The article may need to be reworked to remove the spamminess, but that's another discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, I have added the two references. She also has a ridiculous long list of book awards. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- the author of the page made a request at the help desk, about this article, which may be important/relevant to this deletion discussion. Quote from request: I'm creating a Wikipedia page for myself and I would like to use the bio from my website. How can I do that without it being identified as "plagiarism"? Seagull123 Φ 16:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep I think the number of ratings she has received on Goodreads.com is large (and positive) enough to justify an article. However, WP:COI shouldn't be overlooked, and the article currently reads like a WP:RESUME, both serious concerns. WP:TNT may be in order. Timmyshin (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I would never object to deleting advertising of course, but in this case, the WorldCat shows thousands of library collections therefore enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Since sources have been offered, this would satisfy WP:V. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 30 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.