Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Lam

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. Sandstein 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Eleanor Lam

Eleanor Lam (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)

No indication of notability, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This article looks more like a tabloid article and a LinkedIn profile combined rather than something to be shelved on Wikipedia. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Makes no claims of notability. I can find no reliable sources and consider this individual does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry but that's incorrect. There's a multitude of articles concerning this individual and she is newsworthy. My suggestion is the article is moved back to a draft and I will work on expanding this stub with further sources. Cashannam (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cashannam: Please list the articles that form the multitude you write of. Samsara 00:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot more but here's a start. Cashannam (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

https://hk.asiatatler.com/society/elly-lam-cover-interview-november-2016

https://hk.asiatatler.com/style/We-Deconstruct-It-Girl-Eleanor-Lam%27s-Best-Looks

https://hk.asiatatler.com/generation-t/2016-list/eleanor-1

http://www.baccarat-magazine.com/elly-lam-jc/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dF1-wckyg

http://hashtaglegend.com/post/elly-lam-stuns-roger-vivier-spring-summer-ss17

http://hashtaglegend.com/post/elly-lam-cartier-love-collection

https://www.pressreader.com/malaysia/malaysia-tatler/20170801/284374084440901

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/people-events/article/2082443/dior-launches-lacquer-stick-shines-intense-colour

Please see WP:GNG. These are not reliable sources (with the exception of SCMP), and the coverage is extremely light (not in-depth). Citobun (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Right. The coverage is light, because she's a socialite. Tatler and Hashtag Legend are akin to People magazine or the Daily Mail or even Vanity Fair. She's a B to C list celebrity in Hong Kong and is covered in the same sorts of publications that write about her celebrity counterparts in major western capitals. I don't see why they're worthy of encyclopedia articles but Eleanor isn't. Cashannam (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That "other stuff exists" is not an argument that the subject of this article meets the criteria for inclusion on this encyclopedia, which can be found at WP:GNG. If the subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, then the article ought to be deleted. Citobun (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete "coverage is light because she is socialite", that means failing WP:GNG. Because basic notability criterion is having significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. You've good intention for creating this, but Wikipedia is not place to help upcoming socialite to achieve fame and wide coverage. It only documents biographies of already notable ones. WP:TOOSOON also applies here, you can recreate it after some years if she receive more coverage than " light one" now –Ammarpad (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

She is notable. There is significant coverage about her in multiple secondary sources. I posted nine articles about her above and that's only a small selection. Cashannam (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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.