Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Yuen (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 del `'mikka 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carmen Yuen

Carmen Yuen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is some doubt about the claims made in this article; see talk page and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Yuen. The comments at the bottom of the previous nom are actually about this version of the article. Tizio 11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as recreation of content previously deleted at AfD (CSD G4). If the content has changed significantly since then, delete per notability concerns expressed in the previous AfD. Heather 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I moved the comments that got attached to the other AfD, since the archives shouldn't be edited. cab 23:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - may be becoming notable, but doesn't pass WP:BIO at this time. -- Whpq 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments added to old AfD

I've re-added the deletion notice, since it appears the page was re-created. Anyway, the article still appears to be mostly vanity, and it doesn't cite its sources. Contactlense created the page and is one of the supporters above, which leads me to believe that we have a sockpuppet account. Delete. Jrockway 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep All the information is corroborated by multiple sources in the External Links. These are substantial media cites: CBC Radio One, CityTV, Grammy Foundation. Person has become notable since the previously submitted entry. What aspects of the article are vanity? Perdition12 18:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject meets notability criteria of multiple non-trivial mentions in media independent from the source. 66.249.66.136 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is a vanity page - exploring more about this person reveals a great deal of self-promotion and not much substance. I'm suspicious of the support for the page, since several posters either didn't sign in or have no other contributions other than supporting this article. The article doesn't meet even the minimum requirements of a biography page. Nightngle 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if properly refed This is right on the margins of notability though the trajectory seems to be up. NBeale 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious vanity page. 70.186.172.75 06:14, 15 May 2007 (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.