Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guo Dongli

Guo Dongli

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. Of the three sources cited, #1 does not mention Guo Dongli at all, whereas #2 and #3 are from the same publication (Boxun) of questionable reliability. Even then, Boxun says Guo is just an "ordinary student". Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seen no reason to focus on he is an "ordinary student" or not. And the "no significant independent coverage" does not hold; in fact, lots of articles in Wiki also lack on this problem and only with one or two references. See the following sample Kong Lingxi in Wikipedia. Historysalon (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Historysalon has been blocked as a confirmed sock of User:國冬禮. -Zanhe (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The #1 source did mention the establishment of Youth Solidarity Temporary Student Union (临时青年团结学生联盟), which Guo Dongli is the convener of it. See the following sources [1],[2],[3]. 07:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.17.57 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guo Dongli's Chinese name is 國冬禮, identical to the username of User:國冬禮, whose edits are substantially similar to the new User:Historysalon, who created Guo Dongli; the new User:AOIT2014, who de-prodded the article; and the IP 108.83.17.57, who voted keep above. It seems likely that this is a single individual's elaborate scheme at self-promotion. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/國冬禮. -Zanhe (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. Nothing in the article seems to indicate the importance of this person. —Wasell^(T) 18:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article makes no claim of notability. Why does this person matter? Generally we assume that the question is answered by independent reliable sources when they (not just one or two) chose to do in-depth reporting on the subject, but a little common sense applies, too. Anyway, this doesn't pass WP:GNG cuz it doesn't have that level of reporting. If there was an interview with VOA, then perhaps it should be published by VOA, wouldn't that be logical. It seems especially suspicious that the anonymous VOA reporter with whom the subject is suposedly doing an interview in one of the cited refs is unable to use correct English. I'm with above commenters, this appears to be little more than a detailed hoax of some sort. WP:A7 applies - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search fails to yield anything useful.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]