Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Chua

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. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Chua

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

After searching for some reliable sources, it seems the only notability is to do with a large divorce settlement, resulting in having a large closet and contents (which seem to be the focus of nearly all of the reliable sources). There isn't anything other than that, at least that I could find (+ the page has been protected due to disruptive editing + problems with being a biography). - ChrisWar666 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I probably should have referred to the notability guideline for people instead of WP:N, specifically that being famous or popular is secondary. She -might- qualify for having a large fan base, but we'd still need WP:RS, as the current article refers to the star's own instagram account. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is clearly a very well-known socialite. While the notability may superficial, it's still notability. She is written about a lot in the press. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources provided by Willthacheerleader18 amount to gossip, a handbag store's blog and a rehashed interview. That's not significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. The Straits Times piece cited in the article is a better source, but one good source is not enough. Huon (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I kind of agree with Huon on this one. The sources do not give reliable information about the subject as far as I'm aware. However, I'm open to change my mind on this case. Utopes (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as her notability as an online presence goes, she does have 353,000 subscribers on YouTube [6] as well as 1.1 million followers on her primary Instagram account [7] and 172,000 followers on her secondary Instagram account [8]. Obviously these are not independent secondary sources, but they do back the argument that as a socialite she does have a large following and arguably could pass WP:ENT. Perhaps famous for being famous? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2019 (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.