Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaw-Lan 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Shaw-Lan Wang

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject has been tagged as unreferenced for 18 months. Taiwantaffy (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keep: if the lack of references bugs you, go find some and put them in. I've already put in a(n admittedly not brilliant) source that at least proves that she's a tiwaneese media business woman --Arkelweis (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the way it works. I searched, I read the Chinese Wikipedia article, and I thought her notability was borderline at the very best, so I nominated it. If you or somebody else can prove notability then great - it's always good to see well-referenced articles which establish the notability of borderline subjects like this. But at the moment I don't think there's enough there. I have in the past added tons of references to other Taiwan-related articles, so if I nominate something for deletion, it's because I really don't think it's notable (especially when it comes to BLPs). But, like I said, I'm always happy to be proven wrong. Taiwantaffy (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: See Category:Unreferenced BLPs from August 2007; there are BLP articles from August 2007 that are tagged as "unreferenced". Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Not having sources alone is not necessarily a cause for deletion. As for actual sources, here are a few I easily found using Google:, , and   Guoguo12  --Talk--   02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you put those in then? Shadowjams (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I worked on it a bit and I've created a ref. section. I have also used the ref. provided by Arkelweis as stated above. Guoguo12  --Talk--   13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The added reference from Taiwan Today is a reliable source which establishes notability. Taiwantaffy (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the new references. Shadowjams (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (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.