Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niniane Wang


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Niniane Wang

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Coatracky CV style article about a run of the mill business person not shown to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NBLP. Most of the sources are either interviews or puff pieces derived from press releases. The subject hasn't one any notable awards outside of the usual listicle style top 50 or top 25 which are all puffery and hardly accolades. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG through in-depth independent coverage already present in the article. One of nine likely bad-faith nominations in reaction to the deletion of the nominator's article at Articles for deletion/VIDA Select. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - there definitely seems to be enough independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG NHCLS (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, has significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. .-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 09:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Part of a batch of dubious nomination from the same user who claims there's some sort of Taliban gang creating articles (see ). pburka (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as others have said, there does seem to be enough coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2021 (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.