Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Wong (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Courcelles 08:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Wong
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating on behalf of Spngejen (talk • contribs) who has suggested that the subject has not increased in notability since the article was deleted after the first AFD. Functional nomination - neutral for now. Stalwart 111  10:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion I created this article as I believe the subject qualifies under the Notability guideline. It is now well-referenced and there are several media articles about her and her work in well-known newspapers such as the Hong Kong Economic Times, the South China Morning Post and Apple Daily. Veteram (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too little improvement since last time. Maybe too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep Has both book reviews (AUTHOR) and GNG coverage in multiple reliable sources. The previous AfD did not mention any of these sources which I assume from Veteram's comment above are new or mostly so. -- GreenC  08:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of author and her work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * keepMarioNovi (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2014 (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.