Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Lam (actress)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Carrie Lam (actress)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded the article but it was removed. I am not convinced that this person meets the notability guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage:    <li></li> </ol></li> <li>Less significant coverage:<ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carrie Lam to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep per Cunard's sources. These are professional (if conservative-leaning) publications based in Hong Kong. feminist (+) 16:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Cunard that passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's finding. Sahaib3005, PRODding articles for no valid reason is itself a disruptive behaviour. 219.77.112.254 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , please stop Assuming bad faith. There was valid reasons because a quick google search shows little results here and I was questioning the notability of the actor. Though, the sources found in chinese above might (they could be unreliable or just passing mentions) make the person meet the notability guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't out of bad faith. Just a quick Google search apparently isn't by itself sufficient for Prod. 219.77.112.254 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.