Charmaine Yee: Until a few hours ago this article had many sources that were obvious junk; those that remain are also more or less junk.  None has substantial content.  Googling either "charmaine yee" or "余嘉甄" site:sg brings nothing substantial.  Hoary ( talk ) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions .  Hoary ( talk ) 08:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  Hoary ( talk ) 08:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding because it's not immediately obvious: The Straits Times is owned by the same company as the radio station she works for, so those aren't independent sources.  The rest of the sources in the article are at the moment all primary and/or also non-independent.  (Also, between this, SPH Media 's {{ Undisclosed paid }} tag (Update: yep-- User:Sphcorp , though they at least added the disclosure on their userpage) , and John Klass , who works for the identical radio station and also has an extremely-promotional article edited by none other than User:Johnklass , I'm thinking this web of promotional edits expands a bit beyond Yee alone. ) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 ( talk ) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here ) [ reply ] IP, please review Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion .  However unfortunately, policy fails to say that either "Material only sparsely provided with references to reliable sources" or "Advertising or other spam" is to be deleted.  "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content " is to be deleted; and of course it's easy for a starstruck fan, some well-meaning but otherwise deluded person, or of course a PR company, to leaven the promotional junk with some "relevant or encyclopedic content" (not least because what the content should be "relevant" to goes unspecified).  Thank you for drawing our attention to the wretched article John Klass , but this discussion is limited to the encyclopediaworthiness of Charmaine Yee.  -- Hoary ( talk ) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay then.  Specialized notability criteria Don't think she meets wp:ANYBIO .  (She received Trinity College's 2023 FS Alum of the Year ), but the university has multiple Alum of the Year awards and I'm not sure an award from a single university counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor"--when I hear that I think of akin to the Nobel Prize, but maybe I'm wrong, and wouldn't that need secondary sources supporting it also regardless? ) Does not meet wp:ENTERTAINER from what I can see (she's been part of a whopping two radio stations).  Sources in the article Trinity College: An interview, so a primary source from what I understand.  The Straits Times: Owned by the same company (SPH Media) as the radio station she worked for, so not independent.  Kiss92: doesn't even support the claim that's made, but even if it did, it's her own radio station so not independent.  YouTube: a primary source.  Hotfrog: A business directory whose Products & Services describes how one can "book Charmaine for your next Dinner Dance, Wedding Event, Birthday Party...", so I suspect non-independent.  Other sources There's an AsiaOne article written from the first person (not independent), an Apple podcast episode interviewing her (again primary from what I understand), and several other Straits Times articles (also not independent).  Best article I could find was https://pride.kindness.sg/kiss92-dj-charmaine-yee-growing-up-with-brother/ , which I'm not seeing any immediate problems I know of with, but one source alone wouldn't count as " multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject ", so unless I've misunderstood things or other better sources come up delete .  2603:8001:4542:28FB:39F5:C84:F994:ED49 ( talk ) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here ) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:56, 21 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete