Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feng Timo

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. Consensus was that Feng Timo is notable and that there are sufficient reliable sources to prove this. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Timo

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

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments You received awards but the article needs to be developed more Freetheangels (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English coverage appears to be lacking. As for Chinese sources, I found quite a few hits about her, but they almost all apparently appear to be tabloid-like reports about an allegation that she had secretly married. I haven't dug deep enough to find other sources, so for now I can't !vote Keep or Delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject isn't a professional musician, but a professional network anchor, which has no corresponding notability guideline in Wikipedia, so WP:NMUSIC may not be fully apply to this article. Please reconsider. 223.11.111.160 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appears to be a social media personality. There are Chinese references in the article but after googling her in English all that returns are social media and nothing RS. The article is currently at DYK and as part of the discussion contributors have been asked to ensure she satisfied WP:N but nothing has been forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, foreign language sources are accepted on Wikipedia and can be used to establish notability. If English sources for a foreign subject are lacking, they can still be notable if foreign language sources cover them. With that said, the Chinese sources I could find for her don't seem to be promising either given that they looked like tabloid articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware we accept foreign language references, my opinion is that they will be of the same quality as the English language ones, I can't prove this, however given the preponderance of social media personalities on the internet I find myself at the limit of Good Faith. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Xinhua should be sufficient for WP:GNG they're a major media org.Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is Xinhua? The article just looks paid for to me. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua is kind of a big deal, and ref 1 is an article published on xinhuanet.com - which is one of the publishing subsidiaries of Xinhua. I'd suggest that it definitely counts as a WP:RS. Sina.com is also a big portal - though it's more likely to have user-generated content so I'd proceed with caution on the ones sourced to there though news.sina.com is probably safe to consider an RS (ref 4). So on the basis of her entertainment career alone we've probably got sufficient for WP:GNG when you add in her TV appearances, and her involvement in that embezzling scandal I'd say her notability is pretty darn solid. And even if this page was originally produced by a paid editor, that's not grounds for deletion; there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just learning about the embezzlement scandal from the links in the article and it's kind of crazy and amazing and hilarious, so I do have to admit I would like to keep that on the platform for the odd person who might be amused by it alone. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the refs you noted and I visited her Chinese Language wiki page which is in a similar vein (tagged ref improve). It is less clear cut than I thought, however I asked myself if this person was in the English media with that quality of reference would I vote keep or delete, and the answer is delete. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my case at least, I did see those articles during my search, and they felt more like tabloid articles than what you'd normally read in such sites. Normally those sources would have been enough for me to !vote Keep, but their tone worries me considering this is a BLP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to anchor a "webcast" and release singles onto the internet, her pr company likely staged controversy around her marriage and her accountant stole money off her. Modest fare. It is possible to be notable via the internet as YouTube personality pages on here attest. If it does get kept it needs stubifying. Szzuk (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, her accountant didn't steal money from her. A real estate accountant stole a bunch of money from a developer and gifted it to her and some other TV hostesses. She's promised to return the stolen money, which she had no reason to know was, in fact, stolen. It's actually a really interesting story. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think Make Progress Everyday was a TV program rather than a webseries. Regardless, the coverage of her is easily over the WP:GNG bar and I'd recommend against calling Xinhua a tabloid source because it's really not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to do anything with the article? Its just going to get deleted either now or at another afd in this state. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article requiring improvement is not a valid reason for a delete !vote; suggest it should be nominated for AFI instead. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is voted one of the ten most influential internet celebrities (Big V) in China (think PewDiePie). Enter her Chinese name on Google News and you get a whopping 436,000 results, many from major mainstream news sites such as Sohu, Sina, NetEase and Xinhua, the official news site of the Chinese government. Notable beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No notability probleam for a global-wide Wikipedia, the contributions from the editors should be encouraged.行到水穷处 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2018 (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.