Deletion of Wang sicong

Comment: This is nothing but spamming. A playboy son of a millionaire doesn't become notable simply because he is the son of the richest man in PRC. ( applies). The sourcing is also terrible. That "http://www.forbes.com/profile/wang-jianlin/ Forbes profile" doesn't work. This http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=263863562&privcapId=237015346 Bloomberg is a directory listing. And a trashy daily mail source. Please no. I would have been OK with a redirect, but this must be deleted first. Also Wang Sicong might need to be protected
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT)

Comment: OK, I have gone through and reviewed all the sources that have been added to the article. There's a lot so I will leave my comments under the hat below. In general I will note that nearly all of them refer to him or qualify him as the son of China's richest man. This is a clear indicator to me that he is not notable in his own right. As I said in my nomination, most of the coverage is trivial. If we only use the information in these sources, the majority of the article will be about a rich guy with lots of follows on the internet who likes to waste money on his dog and likes women with large chests. I am not seeing the significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources needed to meet  or to avoid a BLP full of trivia and  material
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: per nom and above. None of the proffered sources are good enough to pass  - they're attack coverage without biographical depth. No evidence the subject actually passes  or any more specific guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:GNG)