Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanlon Wu

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanlon Wu (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)

No indication of notability. This is either a personal advertisement or for the law firm. The two references are primary (linkedIN page and a self entry). The article itself is an over the top haiography by a paid editor. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Someone will likely need to WP:TNT this article to get rid of the promotional material, but it looks like Mr. Wu has received coverage in reliable sources. He is featured in this book about Bruce Lee, this Washington Post article discusses his work, he is mentioned in this report filed in the D.C. Circuit (see p. iii), he is quoted in this Forbes article, and he is mentioned and quoted in this article by the Baltimore Sun. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I just don't think he meets GNG at this time. The Bruce Lee book segment is based on an essay he wrote for the NY Times in 1990 about growing up searching for Asian heroes. While a great article, it doesn't really count as independent coverage of Wu himself. And we don't have in-depth coverage elsewhere. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 13 November 2015 (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.