Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7 Princesses

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. NW (Talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 Princesses

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

non-notable nickname. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references to Facebook fan counts and a single web magazine which appears to be a fan club for one of these artists. RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If author insists, build a small navbox to put at the bottom of each of the "princesses" articles. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the navbox.

- Comment This navbox seems like a very good idea. It links these entertainers together effectively. There just doesn't appear to be enough to say about the term itself to warrant an article of its own.--RadioFan (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added an original excerpt of the term's explanation quoted from a Chinese news source and added a few other external news links to help bring out the significance of the term in Singapore's Chinese entertainment industry. Honestly I insist on the validity of the term because there is news revolving about this nickname at least one article per week? Pehxinyi (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the effort is appreciated, especially the translation to english, I've removed that section. Rather than copy directly from the website, summarize what it is saying about this term and cite the website as a reference.--RadioFan (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They're still widely discussed in the entertainment industry.Pinkbee89 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC) — Pinkbee89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Can you add references to the article to reliable sources?--RadioFan (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, better handled by a category or the proposed navbox. Abductive (reasoning) 23:45, 20 August 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.