Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabelle Cheng

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DrIdiot (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Isabelle Cheng

Isabelle Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Only two sources, one is not RS and the other is questionable. The individual also does not seem to meet notability requirements, having only been mentioned in one obscure article. DrIdiot (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more RS in Donald Keyser, but I still think it fails notability. Much of the information on the current page is not supported by any RS; I'll remove those now eper WP:BLP. DrIdiot (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see lots of Chinese-language coverage.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Mx. Granger correctly points out that finding in-depth coverage in what looks like reliable sources is as easy as searching the Chinese name given in the article. I assume the nominator knew this, since it's step 7 of WP:BEFORE part B. The nominator edits in Taiwan-related articles and I can't even read the language, so is there a reason that coverage was not considered to be a pass of WP:GNG? Just by google translating some of the sources it looks to me like there are dozens of magazine and news articles alone, which is more than enough. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2021 (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.