Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Kao

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. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kao

Amy Kao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

After reading this article and trying to look up information about her, I'm not entirely sure why she is notable. Sure she has coverage, but they usually seem like WP:MILL or WP:NOTRESUME/WP:PROMO. Unless participation in these specific pageants listed or founding a medical startup that is tagged with COI and is very WP:PROMO (also WP:MULTSOURCES) is enough for notability, I'm not sure if I can determine whether or not this article is worth keeping. BriefEdits (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Most of the sources are not significant coverage of the subject, and the article does indeed reek of promo. Like nom, I am having trouble determining if the article is worth keeping. I am leaning towards delete because I do not see enough coverage in secondary sources. Open to changing my !vote if someone can demonstrate otherwise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with the unsigned comment that the article is way too promotional in tone. However I feel like there's enough to demonstrate notability given the founding of a medical startup and non-profit arts program, along with decent media coverage. That said, this article needs serious work. --Mbrickn (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Founding a company, let alone a startup, and a non-profit is not inherently notable per WP:INHERITED. There might be coverage but the range of coverage is intrinsically lacking and scope of topic is local at best. And I can't say that any of the sources I have found or are present in the article to be sufficient enough to establish notability. Even the better ones are all lacking in one way or another (e.g. Connecticut Mag is lacking in depth of coverage as it's a list, Yale Daily News and NJ.com coverage (1 and 2) are both very WP:MILL levels of coverage). — BriefEdits (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. Also WP:NOCVS would seem to apply in this case.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - refbombed - but most are promo pieces in non-reputable publications.-KH-1 (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A case of trying to hit a lot of targets and non have landed. I can't see why she is notable. Puff piece, even now. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 26 October 2021 (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.