Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yi Zhou


 * 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yi Zhou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still confirm my PROD here as it still applies and explains everything there is to say about this article's concerns. SwisterTwister  talk  22:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as an obvious failure of WP:BEFORE, and I would ask the nominator to rewrite the WP:PROD rationale rather than claim that it explains everything, because it is in such ungrammatical English as to make it impossible to work out what we are supposed to reply to. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article's tone is a bit overenthusiastic, and needs editing; but that can be fixed and she's notable for sure. In addition to the quality sources already included in the article, including Paris Match and a CNN travel article that the nominator disdains without good cause, here is a feature in the The New York Times .  --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The CNN is because it's a separately kept "travel" section by an independent journalist, none of that is substance and the article itself contains unconvincing information. As for the other sources, they are either mere mentions or simply interviews, none of that amounts to notability. Also, the ParisMatch, not only being a questionable source, but is in fact something apparently between a press release and a republished "about" as it cites her own website as the source and "please see" hence immediately questioning everything. The NYT, while the best and major source so far, is still too thin and seems to overfocus with republished interviewing and quotes; also, similar, I see NYT has a few other articles about her but nearly all are still only mere mentions, whereas one other is only a few paragraphs long with quotes. When an article is this thin and no genuinely better substance is available, it sufficiently explains this article is not acceptable and can therefore even be removed by WP:NOT alone (Keep votes have not cited policy, also). SwisterTwister   talk  02:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references establish that she is notable. I wonder if the nomination for deletion was prompted by the promotional tone of the article? The subject is good at self-promotion, for sure, that's what her career is based on. But it should be kept out of the article. Maproom (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources themselves then noticeably contain interviews and other trivial information, none of that is substance and this entire article has nothing else beyond it; there's no museum collections or major part reviews, and instead simply the trivial sources here. These comments have not been based in policy, unlike the nomination which is.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If your nomination is based on policy then please write it in comprehensible English so that the rest of us can understand how it is based on policy. And the sources provided are far from trivial. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep - I believe there is notability and that the article could be improved. --  Dane talk  20:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. See source examples below. North America1000 08:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times
 * The New York Times
 * CNN
 * Paris Match
 * Vogue Italia
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Comment and analysis - WP:BEFORE was in fact completed because I searched NYT and all there was is interviews and mere mentions, the only NYT that actually works is the 2014 one as the first 2010 is still a noticeable interview, regardless of publication; even then, the second one is still closely interview-esque. Again, the CNN is the same exact link in the article and it's a travel indie blog section, it's not the actual news section, so that's not a new one at all. Once again, the Paris Match is also the same article and it was a blatant press release with her own websites listed at the bottom as sources. We only have one acceptable source here and that's fine, but when WP:NOT policy is also involved, there's no compromises, regardless. The Vogue is not the exact substance we need as it's only a gallery and a few paragraphs. I'd only withdraw this because of the 2014 NYT, certainly not because of the "self-republished press release in ParisMatch" or the "indie travel blog". SwisterTwister   talk  18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's much more coverage than the CNN travel piece, but GNG makes zero discrimination of sources from travel sections. --Oakshade (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Any artist who achieves the prestige and success of having major installations in Place Vendôme, Piazza della Signoria and the Palazzo Vecchio is notable. With no surprise it took only seconds to find very extensive non-trivial international coverage from the likes of Vogue Italia, the New York Times, Arte and The Japan Times.  And these are mostly just English language sources.  Most certainly much more from non-English sources. Interviewed by the Wall Street Journal (for WP:GNG purposes, independent sources conducting and publishing interviews are coverage counted towards notabiltiy). Described by the New York Times as China's "It" girl.  Per Deletion policy which WP:NOT explicitly states following, any advertising element should be corrected by regular editing instead of deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2016 (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.