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. ✗plicit 00:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Lin (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)

Not finding anything in the article or elsewhere that amounts to significant independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Advertising, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are unreliable sources, passing mentions, or sources that don't mention the subject at all. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I actually see a handful of good sources, but they appear to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of garbagey sources (yes, my mother frequently used the useful word garbagey; it's on Wiktionary). It's a pity, because the subject has a large following on social media. But I don't know what to do. It's too much work for me to rescue, but if you can, ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of significant WP:RS cites and a failure of WP:GNG criteria. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2025 (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.