Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough here for GNG. Most all info out there is still shirttail stuff to her unambiguously notable husband. Suggest deletion, not redirect, as her undisambiguated name already redirects to her husband. John from Idegon (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Several major news media have had articles about her in which she is the main topic. She is an important philanthropist. Gap9551 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow KEEP She is being independently profiled in the press; I'll do a little sourcing.  Note That Wikipedia has an enormous number of articles about individuals notable for being spouses extremely notable people.  We have whole categories (categorized by state) of political spouses alone. Typical example: Chloe Merrick Reed.  The political spouse does not have to write books, have a significant career or do anything.  He or she just has to be profiled in major media, (think Todd Palin).   WP:GNG gauges notability according to the existence of sources that are reliable, significant, verifiable, etc.  It does not matter what a subject is notable for.  We hashed out similar issues in a recently closed-as-keep AFD on Candy Carson.   Profiles in major media are the gold standard of BPL notability.  Chan has them.  We should make her name direct to this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - according to Slate magazine, Chan has a "formidable influence" on Zuckerberg's philanthropy . Having a formidable influence on a $45 billion foundation (which bears her name before Zuckerberg's) makes her notable beyond reasonable doubt. See also Melinda Gates, another famous philanthropist who starts out as a billionaire wife. -Zanhe (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several newspapers in Chinese describe her since the "donation" event. She is become famous not only in the U.S., but also in Chinese. Zero00072 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment while I'm personally on the fence as to whether Priscilla is independently noted enough for her own merits to warrant a separate article, keep in mind that she needs to be noted for more than just family connections to have her own page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Suggest deletion, not redirect, as her undisambiguated name already redirects to her husband – actually the undisambiguated name Priscilla Chan has always been an article about a Hong Kong singer. There's a move request to send that to Priscilla Chan (singer) so that Priscilla Chan could be either a WP:TWODABS + 1 typo or a redirect to information about Mark Zuckerberg's wife (whether that's its own article or a subsection of his article). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The recent growth in the number of sources that are distinctly about her has increased recently and are reflected in this article, supporting the claim of standalone notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Way beyond sufficient separate coverage in reliable sources; nominating women for deletion because they have notable husbands is a Wikipedia trend that needs to stop. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 *  Keep or redirect - In "Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)", with the exception of information about Chan, the only thing that I can see that is not mentioned in Mark Zuckerberg is "The Primary School". For this reason, if the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Mark Zuckerberg per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As the sources cited by the article show, she obviously generates enough press coverage to be notable. Even if much of her activities are connected to her husband, the fact that she is going to be directly involved in the allocation of $billions of philanthropic funds, makes her a figure of independent interest. The obvious comparable is Melinda Gates. The Gates Foundation has had a major impact on the world, making the key figures involved in it figures of public interest. The same is sure to be true here as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Has become notable enough that her biography will be of interest. The alternative of keeping a large section on Zuckerberg's page devoted to his wife seems to be decidedly worse. Note that even though she might not have founded Facebook, she is currently a billionaire. She also closely advises Zuckerberg on, among other things, his recent forays into China leading to the possible unblocking of Facebook and future competition with the Chinese web giant Baidu. Several verifiable claims to notability like this have not worked themselves into the page yet, and once they have, notability should be easily met. Give editors some time. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Absolutely meets WP:BIO. What a nonsense for AfD. STSC (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * # of page views argues for keep, I think we can slose as WP:SNOWBALLE.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (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.