Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu (2nd nomination)

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 speedy delete. It's snowing. Star Mississippi 00:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Liu

Leo Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a BLP of a non-notable person for whom there are no reliable sources. The closure of the initial AFD as "Keep" ignored the deficiency of sources and the lack of citation to sources claimed by "keep" advocates. There may be some confusion about sources, since there are large number of sources to other persons with the same name. This person is not notable. He is a teenage blogger who once appeared at TEDxEustis conference a year ago (TEDxEustis is not TED, and is held at a high school auditorium in a small town in Florida) and self-published a book that has no reviews by reliable sources. He clearly does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO. Woodroar (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless someone can provide links to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The earlier AfD debate was deeply flawed. Cullen328 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disruptive: This was closed less than a week ago and apart from the nom, this was unanimous "keep". If you don't agree with the previous close, take it to
  WP:DRV. Opening another AfD is plain disruptive. I'm taking this to ANI.--Randykitty (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  In most any other circumstances, yes this would be considered disruptive. But your bad close was so egregious that a new afd is rather justified. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To say that I disagree with your assessment would be an understatement, Randykitty. I encourage you to engage in some self-reflection. The closer's job is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments, not to count votes. One strong, policy based argument to delete ought to be more convincing than 100 ignorant, evidence free arguments to keep, especially when they are unrooted from policy. If you were unwilling to properly close a debate polluted by ill-informed, irrelevant opinions by newly created accounts, then you should have abstained and moved on, or you should have participated as an ordinary editor recommending "delete" instead of making that bad close. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this pile-on needed? The matter has been well hashed over at ANI. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability in the article, amazed to hear a previous AfD was closed as keep but that is not a reason to keep a non-notable article. Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, did a google and looked at the sources which came up... Then I went and looked at the version of the page which existed during the last AfD and I'm genuinely not sure how it possible was kept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: (from RSN) per nom and above editors; barring someone posting some GNG sources, it's an unreferenced BLP. I also don't quite understand how the last AFD ended in keep, but glitches happen, so do-over. Levivich (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far too trivial for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete now that the bad sourcing has been removed, there is nothing left this person doesn't meet notability in reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the user above me. Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. I'm surprised at how superficial the previous discussion was; such superficial discussions can't be considered a proper consensus. Those sources weren't reliable, and weren't properly scrutinised. I can't resist pointing out that TEDx has notoriously low standards for speakers (remember the Sam Hyde one?); it's basically equivalent to saying "this person attended a Toastmasters once", or "in his high school biology class, this person gave a presentation on spiders". DFlhb (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has zero sources cited. I'm assuming this dude wrote the article about himself, despite doing absolutely nothing notable. The-J-Verse (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2023 (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.