Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson Li


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Jackson Li

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable as the article has stayed basically exactly how it started in August 2010 and the best my searches found were only here, here, here and here, nothing outstanding to suggest immediate better artists notability and improvement here. Notifying involved past users, and  in case they have comments. SwisterTwister  talk  21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is as promotional as the original version was, the one deleted by in 2010--in fact, it looks to be a carbon copy. At the time  removed a speedy deletion template (guess I missed that, Boing), but look at phrases like "The knowledge we have gathered is the fruit of many years of experiments with temperature control". The creator, Leochou, has done nothing positive to the article, and has only restored the unencyclopedic and promotional content. (Note that  also removed 12k of promotional material, three years ago.) There are no reliable sources, nothing to mitigate the resume-style vanispam. Thanks for the nomination: it's time for this to go. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep because of meeting the criterion for WP:CREATIVE, having multiple works in major museums. There can always be a question of whether the museums are major enough,  but the speedy I removed was for A7, and having those works was certainly enough to pass Speedy.  The promotionalism  has been a problem. But looking at the article history, there hasn't been a major attempt at adding (or adding back) promotionalism  since 2012, so we seem to be able to keep this fairly clean.  It could certainly be cleaned up further.  DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the keep above and because deletion is not cleanup. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally promotional article, which easily qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion G11. If the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which may be so, but sources showing that it is so have not been provided) then it will be better to delete this unsuitable article and write a better one if someone is willing to do so, but far too often we get people arguing to keep a crap article on the grounds that it "can be cleaned up", and then, when it is kept, show no interest whatever in actually cleaning it up. I have no doubt that the motives of editors making such arguments are honourable, but the practical effect is that we keep articles in a state which nobody thinks should be kept. As long as the article is spam it qualifies for deletion, and should not be kept on the basis of speculation about the merits of some hypothetical non-spam article which doesn't actually exist. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'd agree with the keep if there were references from independent reliable sources which backed up the claims made in the article. But there aren't, and I couldn't find any. Searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The article could be deleted on notability grounds, but also as per WP:DEL4, since it reads like a promo piece for the artist.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:16, 9 January 2016 (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.