Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benebell Wen


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Benebell Wen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This almost made the proposed deletion category. The notability of this person is being questioned. Her biographical information is uncited, and will shortly be removed by me. The problems with some of the references are described on the talk page. Many of these 'reviews' of the person's book appear to be blogs with little to no editorial oversight. It appears that the user account was created solely for the publication of this article. I had the article initially tagged with 'advert' but the author of the article removed it. Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  00:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: No evidence that this author meets the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE I don't see her anywhere but the forbes article on google news. The article features very little on her. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Reading WP:BIO notability guidelines, secondary sources are cited, including Random House and Forbes. To meet standard as cyclopedic entry, secondary sources cited to cover author biography and area of specialization, e.g., Forbes, Entropy Magazine, Spiral Nature Magazine. As BLP, an effort at NPOV was made, though if that is still at issue, then worth discussion. V standards also met per Wikipedia's own published guidelines. Also, NOR guideline met. Registering account just to write entry is not prohibited by any guidelines. If it is, please advise. Disclosure: WP:AVOIDCOI Ktmyss221 (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC) — Ktmyss221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: The article is a biography of Benebell Wen.  All the information about her book and the awards that it has gotten provides us no information about the person  All the references are reviews of the book, and gives us no information on the notability of the person.   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable. I note that even in the Forbes piece there is a disclaimer asserting that the piece is by Kim Westerman,and is not necessarily endorsed by Forbes. All of the rest of Kim Westerman's pieces are promo pieces which look as though they are re-regurgitated press releases. Not much reliability or robustness there IMHO.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep  As per Ktmyss221 especially the Random House and Forbes sources. Most of the articles from contributors on Forbes have that general disclaimer. It is just a legal disclaimer. A contributor wrote an article and Forbes published it. Forbes is a WP:RS.    Cheers!     WordSeventeen (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would be more than happy to withdraw my request for the deletion of this article if there were actually a bit more biographical information on the person in the article. The article has changed considerably since I first nominated it for deletion and is getting closer to being an actual biography rather than an article whose original intent was to promote a singular, published book. We really don't know much about this person and it is a biography after all. Referenced information concerning the following would make the article be more a bit biographical, I'm not suggesting that the author provide all of this information, but a little more information on the person rather than just what she has published and thinks gives us more information on the person: place of birth, age, family status, college education, college activities, high school attended, lectures and talks given, public appearances, other significant career accomplishments, philanthropic activities, religion, ethnicity, advanced degrees…  These are all examples of what is considered biographical information and if just a few of these were provided and referenced adequately I will remove my nomination for the deletion of this article. On a personal level, I actually believe in expanding the encyclopedia and not excluding information that someone might be looking for. I am quite pleased when an article is not deleted-so you can say that I am 'cheering' you on, editor-author, to provide a little more biographical information. I really like the photograph! Best regards,   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Relist again to invite more editors to assess the article after its recent revamp.
 * Delete per above. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BASIC: other than an interview with the subject in Forbes, no other sourcing of the subject herself. Esquivalience t 23:28, 24 April 2015 (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.