Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han JinYu

Han JinYu

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

The neutrality of this article is disputed. (April 2013) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (April 2013) This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (April 2013) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (April 2013) This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (April 2013) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (April 2013) This article relies on references to primary sources. (April 2013) This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (April 2013) This article's listed sources may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (April 2013) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (April 2013) Azylber (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: none of the problems listed by the nominator are sounds reasons for deletion. It is a problem that the article in question has no references to independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's notability, and it's not clear that notability could be established even if someone sought out such references. TheBlueCanoe 05:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely correct. I thought I had included these reasons in the nomination. For some reason I didn't. Sorry. Thanks! Azylber (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. It's just a promotional article about someone who is not notable. Azylber (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, you can add more comments to the discussion of course, but don't format it as if it's an independent comment in support of the nomination. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - No multiple secondary sources to support any notability of the subject. STSC (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of the page in question, I naturally want to help where I can in this matter. I know the person in question but it's not intended to be a promotional article but rather an informational one. I put in references that I had at hand in the article. How can I improve the article? TTsThomas (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I edited the page, adding information and references and removing some text. TTsThomas (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Main contributor seems to be extensively related to the article's subject, subject fails WP:BIO and also fails WP:GNG, also article has multiple issues which are going to compromise its maintenance within Wikipedia in long term, such as being written as an ad and its purpose being only for benefiting the subject. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like who knows a subject should not create an article.. I want to improve the article to also make it acceptable in other users eyes. Actually, most of the given reasons for nomination, I can't follow. Like the ad character or the weasel words? How can I improve the article?TTsThomas (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After work on the article, there are now 2 German newspaper pieces on this person. That's a good start in terms of WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If more independent RS can be found then I would change my stance. STSC (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]