Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liu Zhongjing

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Zhongjing[edit]

[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)

I'm no expert on the sources here, not being a Mandarin speaker, but most of them look like primary sources or social media. I don't think this person is notable. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is a disaster, and the refs are largely this person's Medium blog. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has published several books in Chinese and translated many more from English into Chinese. His books seem to have at least a few hundred readers in China: [1]. He also has a column on The News Lens: [2] Are these enough to establish notability? I'm not so sure. I'm leaning Delete because the article is terrible as mentioned, with sentences such as "[he] is considered an important figure in the pro-Western ultra-right in contemporary China". Probably requires WP:TNT if anything, right now it looks too much like WP:SOAPBOX. Timmyshin (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The News Lens doesn't look too notable itself, unfortunately. He seems like a minor writer/provocateur rather than a notable theorist. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 18:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let me fill up the #Reviews paragraph. Do not delete too hurry. BTW, the result of AfD discussion in Chinese Wikipedia is kept. 116.192.198.9 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have improved this article, I think now it is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Need any more? 116.192.198.9 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, its Chinese Wikipedia counterpart is essentially a fan page. Regarding his translation work, there are couple reports on their low qualities. ([3], [4]) -Mys_721tx (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "本條目類似愛好者專頁" / "This article may be written from a fan's point of view" is not "essentially". If essential, why Chinese Wikipedia consensus decide not to delete? 116.192.198.9 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Because it was kept due to a technicality, not the notability of the subject. -Mys_721tx (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Please explain which "technicality"? Until Chinese Wikipedia comply deletion, I insist on Chinese Wikipedia consensus decide not to delete. 116.192.198.9 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  It is already in that discussion you cited. The article was kept because the standard procedure on Chinese Wikipedia requires a 30-days hold for notability-based deletion. Please do not cherry-pick. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  This AfD on Chinese Wikipedia is in 2015, but now is 2018. Far more than 30 days. Thou you should restart AfD on Chinese Wikipedia, urge Chinese Wikipedia comply deletion. 116.192.198.9 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese wikipedia and English wikipedia are independent projects. Related, but of different criteria. Timmyshin (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG since a great many sources are the individuals blog posts or a link to a social media account. The article also has an air of trying to spreading an ideology, not inform readers. He also doesn't appear to be a notable author or philosopher either. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2018 (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.