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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elyse Ribbons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

person is not notable enough to have page Gwangqq (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThe subject created the page herself, which calls into the candidate's notability into question. Search engine query shows that the subject has not created a dramatic work of note. Externally linked pages largely cite the curiosity of a non-Chinese person producing plays in China, rather than the quality of the of plays themselves. Therefore the candidate seems like a specimen of a notable phenomenon, rather than bearing any notability herself.Gwangqq (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-The journal article appears to reference subject's opinion on food served at Chinese venues. This can hardly be considered the accolades of a playwright/actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phostorm (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Elyse (I found this article while googling for a picture that a journalist had posted) and wow, no, I didn't write the article and I'm not sure why you think that I had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekythemonkey (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThe profile of the article's creator user:lajex is identical to Elyse Ribbons's bio, and Elyse Ribbons is apparently the only article lajex has written. This is all discussed in the article talk page. Regardless, the entry is not notable by its own merit, regardless of who wrote it.Gwangqq (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the author of the page say she didn't create a page about herself, if the Wikipedia folk say she is the creator. How strange...and retarded. If everyone wanted to make a page for themselves, what would the world come to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.243.119.30 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Gwangqq, who put this up for deletion, only did so after thoroughly vandalising it. Edits to Elyse Ribbons are this user's sole contributions to Wikipedia. Phostorm also vandalized the Elyse Ribbons article, and those form the majority of that user's Wikipedia edits. I pointed out the similarity of the page to user:lajex, but if that's just someone pretending to be Elyse Ribbons, then I don't see any reason to delete this article. Zhwj (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The reason for the author's user page being about Elyse Ribbons is very likely that the author created a draft for this article there. Please let's assume good faith and believe each other in discussions unless there is a very strong reason not to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The links provided (except for the Wall Street Journal one that is just a quote about chinese food) provide sufficient coverage for notability. Yes, the publications may have given the subject more coverage because the subject is "a curiosity", but we base notability on the coverage that exists, whatever the reason for that coverage, as long as it comes from independent reliable sources. It's unfortunate that we have too little coverage of the majority of people (i.e. Chinese people) in China of similar notability, but the way to address that is to create those articles, not to delete this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to the links in the article, the subject has had multiple productions covered in the media. Zhwj (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If a few reviews on obscure websites were all that were required for notability, hundreds of thousands of minor playwrights would swamp Wikipedia. Vartanza (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. These are hardly "obscure websites". Beijing Today and City Weekend are print publications, China Radio International is the Chinese equivalent of the BBC World Service or the Voice of America, and china.org.cn is the main Chinese government portal. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete minimal material on major search engines. if she has been featured in international magazines, i can't find them. and the wsj comments don't really count as a source in my book. even if we do keep the article, i think the wsj link should be deleted as trivial and irrelevent. Tractops (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Tractops (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, the WSJ source is trivial, but the other sources cited in the article are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Phil Bridger. Peridon (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[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.