Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estrella Lin


 * 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. The article was substantially expanded and sourced during the AfD discussion.  Sandstein  09:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Estrella Lin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No real assertion of notability here, although the book appears to be interesting — but I don't think it gives her enough notability still. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Poorly written article but quality of writing is not a criteria for keep or delete, notability is. This person is notable and reasonably famous an actress. Spevw (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and ban User:Nlu from nominating any more articles for deletion until he can be bothered to follow WP:BEFORE, as has been requested multiple times beginning FOUR years ago. AfD is not about "Assertion of notability", it is about whether sources exist which cover the topic in a non-trivial fashion. Nominator reads Chinese perfectly well but is mysteriously unable to copy and paste a Chinese name into the Google search box and note the dozens of newspaper articles written about her. Article expanded with a small fraction of those available sources. Quit wasting our time. cab (call) 05:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I did exactly that; did you? What I saw was a short spurt of coverage that, to me, suggested WP:15M and didn't suggest actual notability.  If she actually has notability, well, I was hoping that someone would come up with evidence of it.  And of course, you can't be bothered to actually clean up the mess that the Category:Taiwanese people category tree that I was trying to clean up — which is how I came across this article in the first place.  Without my spending the time to do that, I would not have, in a number of years, have heard of anything involving this allegedly very notable actress.  Perhaps I just don't spend enough time watching Taiwanese soaps.  (Talking of wasting time...)  If you know of this person's notability, speak up (and I do acknowledge that you've been cleaning up the article since it was nominated for deletion).  It's not my job to, while trying to clean up the category tree for hundreds of articles — which I had been doing the last several days — to spend hours in addition to that trying to verify the notability of people that don't appear obvious from a Google search.  If you don't want to waste your time, don't bother looking at these.  --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Google News archive has a very helpful time bar visualisation box on time which shows you what months the coverage comes from on any given search term. Why don't you look at it? Her book came out in August. She has coverage from January of last year up until the present. You don't need to watch Taiwanese soap operas to be able to read newspaper articles and summarise their contents. I've never heard of 99.9% of the places, people, and works making up English Wikipedia's millions of articles either. If you want to fix categorization errors, then fix categorization errors.. Being a Wikignome is not an excuse for poor AfD nominations. The rest of us revert vandalism, fix formatting errors, and apply categories too. cab (call) 06:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You really meant to suggest to me that this search is enough to suggest that she's anything more than a trashy starlet getting a short spurt of coverage? You are welcome to your opinion that she's notable.  You want to insist not only that everyone has to consider her notable, but consider her not notable based on these searches is so unreasonable as to deserve a ban?  I really find this logic surreal.  --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'll add this comment: while I appreciate your work in cleaning up the article and adding references, nothing you have added so far shows any real notability as far as I am concerned. Her romantic life and her breasts don't exactly make her notable.  Not unless, of course, we've added a WP:BREAST guideline on notability while I wasn't looking.  --Nlu (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ... significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The sources address the subject in detail. There are dozens of them. They run over a period of more than a year and are not just about WP:ONEEVENT such as her book release. Your only argument left is that the details are distasteful and stupid. This has nothing to do with deletion policy. It does not distinguish you from those of us voting "keep", your snide comments to the contrary notwithstanding. And it doesn't excuse you for AfDs on award-winning novelists and professors and pilots where other editors repeatedly admonished you that your understanding of "notability" and "significant coverage" deviated so far from the consensus definition as to constitute a nuisance at AfD. cab (call) 08:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't consider the coverage of her to be trivial. I believe otherwise.  --Nlu (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Subject has achieved a level of notability across a number of years, in what look to me like reliable sources. Could use a good edit. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2011 (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.