Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Lam Ho

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 Userfy. I had originally closed this as a delete but on further consideration, I believe that userfying is an acceptable course if there is a chance of finding foreign language sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Lam Ho

Emily Lam Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Lacking in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (This individual is newsworthy and there are dozens of articles about her work in major publications. Happy to change this back to a draft and add further sources.) --Cashannam (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note I have moved the page back into article space, where it was when nominated. Articles should never be moved while a deletion discussion is underway. I have move-protected it for the duration to insure it does not happen again. Moving it back to draft space is a possible outcome here, but unilaterally doing so in the middle of the discussion is just confusing, and edit warring over it is particualrly counter-productive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: please I am suggesting per WP:IAR, you should just userfy it and delete this AfD (or close), since the user is newbie and I don't see any benefit of keeping this going for seven days and ending at the same thing. I have searched for the name, not much is found. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's incorrect. There's a multitude of articles concerning this individual and she is newsworthy. My suggestion is the article is moved back to a draft and I will work on expanding this stub with further sources. Cashannam (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't get my comment, I didn't say there are no sources at all or to delete the article; I am just asking him to simplify things and move it to your userspace now; so that you can improve it instead of waiting for seven days discussion which will also very likely end up with the same conclusion. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yes I misunderstood. However I'd prefer this was moved back to a draft instead allowing other users to contribute too. Cashannam (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough coverage of her to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -It seems to me moving to draft will not make any difference. If something is not notable keeping it and continuous editing hardly makes any difference. WP:QMOUNT. There's no independent coverage about her whatsoever that is why the sources used are Instagram and LinkedIn. generally fails WP:GNG. Search shows the same thing. I hope the author will next write on something notable. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability based almost solely on her being the daughter of a famous man. But not many sources to make that so. NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draft:Emily Lam Ho. There are numerous sources about the subject in a Google search for her Chinese name. She has a good chance of passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I recommend moving to draftspace as article creator Cashannam (talk · contribs) has requested to give Cashannam the chance to incorporate those sources.

  Her article notes, "She is the daughter of Hong Kong-based billionaire businessman Peter Lam and Taiwanese actress Tse Ling-ling, and since June 2016, the Director of Business Development at Sing Tao News Corporation, founded by her father-in-law Charles Ho." Another option is to merge this article to her parents' articles if it is determined that she is not independently notable.

  Cunard (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2017 (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.