Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lim May Zhee


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Lim May Zhee

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Sources do not provide sufficient coverage for notability. Appears to be written by the subject herself to promote her blog and books. The first link is dead (and was to another wiki anyway), the next to links are actually to the same source, and the fourth link is to a blog. All they establish is that she wrote a book. Manybytes (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not exactly sure if this will be enough to establish notability, as it's by The Star, which is a Malaysian newspaper, and thus would normally be reliable. But with the lack of other reliable sources, I don't know if this will be enough. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I share your skepticism-- it establishes that she's a self-published author with slight blog readership (looking at it now, I doubt it's still as active as claimed in that article) but neither of those establish notability. (There are [over half a million] self-published books a year, and I think that number is for the UK alone.) How do we proceed from here? Manybytes (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep. Found another article in The Star . Both are feature articles, not trivial. Just because she is self-published doesn't make it non-notable, some people are notable for being self-published authors ie. the rebel who made it on her own story. It seems to be the case here. The The Star has picked up on her story as a successful self-published author. Another mention in The Star . It would be nice to have other sources than The Star (in case she has some sort of connection to it), but I think these are enough to err on the side of caution and keep the article around for more development. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The two articles from The Star are good enough for me to establish notability. Any other problems with the article are surmountable. De Guerre (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Writing a book at a young age tends to generate some curiosity, but it is not an indicator of achievement or success. Most self-published books are self-published because the authors cannot find a publisher; so instead the authors borrow their parents' money to fund their ego project. There is no sign of her further advancing in her "career" since her self-published book from 7 years ago. Rank-one map (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Another reference is . That with the other references has the topic meeting WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2012 (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.