Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chang Tzu Ping

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Tzu Ping[edit]

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

Unverified and implausible (a Chinese man found by American soldiers in his 40s would been over 100 by this point as no American soldier has been in China since the 1940s), but even if verified would still have notability questions. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax alarm buzzing. A pure GNG failure at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched the video. Fake as fuck. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chang is described in a book by Lee M. Silver. So I'm inclined to think it's real. Braincricket (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Braincricket (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if his story is real, there is virtually no evidence that this person is or was notable. The available sources consist of a You-Tube video (not acceptable to Wikipedia), a supposed TV appearance supported only by a website (not a reliable source), and a sentence in a book. I found no evidence that his surgery, reportedly in the US, attracted any news coverage at all. Certainly there are some people born with anomalies, but they aren't notable unless they receive the usual significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. MelanieN said it best. Braincricket (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2012 (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.