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. PaoloNapolitano 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Kuo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, no reliable sources, none found via Google Web or Google News. Huon (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A notable presenter and actress for TVB, and a previous winner of Miss Chinese International. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability, no reliable sources found. DigitalC (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Systemic bias, WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

I don't disagree that Wikipedia has a systemic bias. However, Wikipedia's policy is that an article (especially a BLP) must be sourced with reliable sources. If you can provide such non-english sources, that would be a start. DigitalC (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: [1] Her official blog on TVB's website (TVB is a Hong Kong television station and its programmes are available by cable or satellite in Malaysia, Australia and Canada), and [2] a reference to her as the winner of the 2009 Miss Chinese International pageant. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

And here's the webpage for the 2009 results.[3] 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)blocked as sock[reply]

Neither her blog nor any other TVB websites are secondary sources on a TVB presenter. Huon (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. There is still no significant coverage in secondary sources. The pageant's own website is not a secondary source on pageant winners. Huon (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Struck repeated !vote; you may comment as many times as you wish but may only !vote once —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article has been fixed.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Like it or not, clearly passes WP:ANYBIO#1 for her two winnings in notable competitions. And probably also passes WP:ENT#1 per her multiple television and film works. Cavarrone (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This line of reasoning would be more convincing if the pageant articles actually showed significant coverage in secondary sources. Right now the only reliable source for either her or the pageants is a single Toronto Chinese newspaper article, whicht arguably constitutes only local coverage. Huon (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to look for secondary sources about these competitions? ie, about Miss Chinese International: [4]. Cavarrone (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't, and since I can't read Chinese (and Google Translate seems to give at best a very rough translation that leaves much to be desired), I wouldn't be the best person to do so anyway. If you can tell which of those Google hits represent reliable secondary sources and what they say, please go ahead and improve the articles. Just pointing to a list of non-English search results isn't really helpful. Huon (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires that sources exist, not that they are actually included in the article. Cavarrone (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per verifiability of meeting WP:ENT through career in film and television and WP:ANYBIO for pageant wins. While meeting WP:GNG is the easiest way to ascertain notability, it is not the only way. Non-English sources for a topic determinable as notable outside the West is perfectly fine for Wikipedia. Adressable issues are rarely cause for deletion of notable topics. User:Cavarrone has it correct, notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their being IN an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon You can visit the Wikipedia:Translators page. There are no English sources for her as she is based in Hong Kong, and outside of Hong Kong Chinese communities still use Chinese articles about her.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is apparent. Don't nominate just because WP:IDLI. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and probably a sock[reply]

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.