Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Astrology prince

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Little Astrology prince

nn. seems to be an ad for their website. 202.156.2.74 16:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. A well-known astrologer and writer. — Instantnood 17:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it verifiable? The Google test does return many results, but most of them are either 1) the WP article 2) sites using the WP article 3) link to his own website. - 218.212.97.56 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A well-known astrologer and writer who has kept his identity a secret!!! Let's help him to continue to keep it a secret. Delete. Dlyons493 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --PhilipO 20:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Please add your reasoning. Thank you. BorgQueen 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I couldn't verify it. --Apyule 04:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
That might verify his existance, but I can't read Chinse and I'd like to see something more than a link to a personal website. --Apyule 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here is a list (in Traditional Chinese) of books he authored, with ISBN. — Instantnood 09:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — I followed the link which User:Instantnood provided, and found the Internet Public Library only listed his sushi fortune-telling website. We are not talking about the website here, are we? We are talking about "the astrologer who keeps his identity secret" himself. Second, since there are countless people and company who provide e-card on regional sites for promotional purposes, I don't think it in itself qualifies him for the notability. Third, his book, allegedley published in 1997, has no ISBN, and I could not find on Amazon.com. Unless some better proof comes up, I vote Delete. BorgQueen 11:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Here is a list (in Traditional Chinese) of books he authored, with ISBN. — Instantnood 12:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dottore So 18:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Please add your reasoning. Thank you. BorgQueen 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If this person is going to be that secretive, then just how much material can we add to this page? It will probably remain a stub forever. :D Jokes aside, I would like to see more evidence over the notability of this person and his books.--Huaiwei 10:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
But now what are the actual reasons for deleting the entry? it is because 1)it sounds promotional 2)we don't know the name of this person recorded on his ID card 3)it will probably remain a very short entry. Which one(s)? --K.C. Tang 12:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not too sure for the rest, but all three reasons u quote are valid for discussion here, although I am not too concerned about his real name. I am more concerned over just how much content u can add for something as secretive as this. Is wikipedia going to become a source for original research by unravelling this mystery?--Huaiwei 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to add, even if this individual is somewhat known in Hong Kong, (if I understand correctly) Hong Kong is just a small part of China, and since it seems people from the rest of China never heard of this person, this person does not meet the requirement of WP:BIO. 202.156.2.75 16:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you the same person as the one who made this nomination? By your IP address I can tell you're currently located in Singapore, and I'm not surprised by your comment on Hong Kong. By searching for sites by country on Google, I got 29,900 for sites in Hong Kong, 1,680 for Taiwan, 40,000 for China (I suppose CN refers specifically to mainland China). Of course a Google test doesn't provide the full picture of his notability, but that already refutes the claim that " people from the rest of China never heard of this person ". Take a look at the descriptions of him on the sites from the Google test too. — Instantnood 16:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am sorry, but may I know what you mean by "I can tell you're currently located in Singapore, and I'm not surprised by your comment on Hong Kong."?--Huaiwei 17:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think this guy does earn some publicity in Hong Kong, but, persoinally, I don't like this guy. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well this guy does have some publicity in Taiwan and mainland China too, and of course, overseas Hongkonger communities. — Instantnood 07:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't like a lot of people but that doesn't mean they should be deleted (from wikipedia or otherwise). I think a policy says articles on writers are acceptable if they publish (but not by vanity press). -Ajshm 16:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Not all published authors are eligible. I've followed the link WP:BIO and found this: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more - BorgQueen 16:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Then our petite prince should be qualified ... HK girls are crazy about astrology and the likes, u know. :P --K.C. Tang 01:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And he writes on several newspapers currently and in the past. I don't think it's possible for any newspaper in Hong Kong to survive with a readership less than 5000. — Instantnood 07:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • That said, 5000 is actually a very small figure, and it probably should not be the only criterion when evaluationg this case. Just about any book published in Singapore and which are by law required to be stocked in the national library here already automatically gets an audience of over 5000, even if you are a minnow no one know about.--Huaiwei 07:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep In addition to the popup-ad-laden website this person apparently (per a review found here http://www.wicce.com/roth14.html) has published a rather ugly Tarot deck. Perhaps someone can show notability. Crypticfirefly
  • Keep. No apparent sign of coincidence with the deletion criteria. Doesn't fit much as a vanity deletion. Deryck C. 10:55, 28 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.