Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meng Zhaojun

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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Zhaojun

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

There is a lack of reference - but more fundamentally, there may be a problem with this person's notability. Assuming the assertion here is true, I think the person is close to being notable, but not quite. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Nlu noted, if the assertion is true, he may be somewhat notable however that information cannot be verified. Meatsgains (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP with no prejudice to re-creation (or change to keep) if sourced. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are many sources in Chinese, but I know too little about calligraphy to understand them. Seems moderately notable based on what's presented in this article. Pinging User:Lemongirl942 to take a look. Timmyshin (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2016 (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.