Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Leo Liu

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PROD tag removed by User:Carinco Tuck. The article fails WP:Notability. TED website and the subjects's own opinion piece are not independent from the subject. All cited pages on news sites are press releases and the sites have clearly stated that there are "no warranties or representations in connection therewith". Famous Books is an unreliable blog. My search doesn't give any sources for WP:GNG either. HTinC23 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. HTinC23 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, though the notability strength of the article at the time of nomination was weak, it has now improved with new sources. Carinco Tuck (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Vents Magazine (4 Feb) is not reliable per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203. The American Mail (3 Feb) is like a personal website with a broken contact page: "Email: contact@yourwebsite.com". Daily Magzines [sic] (3 Feb) is a site for SEO purpose. It doesn't matter how many such sources one can produce hot off the press since the PROD tag on 28 Jan, as they can't count towards WP:Notability if they are not "reliable (and secondary) sources that are independent of the subject".——HTinC23 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are at least two useful sources plus the Vent Magazine questioned above. The Vent Magazine is not a deprecated source as commented above. An editor only raised an issue for clarification on whether it could be used or not. But the discussion did not generate necessary opinions to determine whether to blacklist it or not. For now that source can still be used.Hesi0913 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out which two are the useful sources? (Also note that "deprecated", "blacklist", and "not reliable" have different meaning in the RSN context (see WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for more detail) and I'm only claiming it is not reliable.) ——HTinC23 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. There's wide coverage in third-party sources, I believe. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep because there are enough independent sources to justify the existence of this article. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 18:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If by "wide coverage in third-party sources" and "independent sources" the editors mean sources not yet cited in the article, it would be helpful to point them out. (There are other people with the same name but I don't seem to find independent sources about the subject of this article.) I've just done a bit more research into the sources cited. The author of the The American Mail article is named "Clare Green", and when you click on that name, you are lead to an author page whose url says "infodigitalmarketinggmail-com". If you instead click on the globe symbol but not the author's name, you are lead to another site "bbctribune", which again is an SEO site selling guest posts at a very reasonable price. The Vents Magazine article introduces the author as "My name is Farhan. I am an author on Ventsmagazine. For any business query contact me &amp; also I sell paid guest posts on my high quality websites you can contact me at: admin@technewsbusiness.com http://technewsbusiness.com" These factors, together with the fact that these posts (also Daily Magzines mentioned above and The Manhattan Herald which was once cited in the article) all appear shortly after the PROD tag, seem to suggest that the sources are not third-party and not independent from the subject, but are rather paid SEO/marketing guest posts with the specific purpose to retain this Wikipedia article. (Reliability is also a problem but let's focus on independence for now.) ——HTinC23 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2023 (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.