Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Chang

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Notability is contested by the result of this discussion. Recommends against creation protection. To contest this decision, please go through the process of deletion review. Alex ShihTalk 07:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chang[edit]

Tony Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( · )
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the name change, this is the same individual as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Shang and User:Shujenchang. Pinging the editors who participated in the previous discussion User:Jsjsjs1111, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Omega625, User:AKS.9955, User:SwisterTwister, User:STSC, User:Lemongirl942, User:Grahamec, User:Sandstein Timmyshin (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Sorry, I might have missed something, but Timmyshin you do not seem to have provided a reason for your nomination of this article for deletion. What is your reason for such this time around. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is an article about me. However, myself did not participate in the writing of this article. Due to COI, I will not vote in this discussion, but will make some comments for others' reference. Please note that the corresponding Chinese article 張樹人 was re-written in November 2016 with numerous new sources by another user 葉又嘉 who definately confirmed have no connections with me. Therefore, the article was restored on Chinese Wikipedia according to DRV. Although later on it went through to AFD vote again, but this time no one vote delete.--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, on 26 November 2017, the Chinese articles was added a notability template. However, one month later, when that user received a message to notify there was a month passed since the article listed for notability, but he did not submit the article for AFD. On 27 December, the article was listed on AFD page but not vote for delete by anothor user said that there is a month passed after the article listed for notability, but not nominated for deletion, and if others considered the article not met the notability criteria, can submit AFD within 7 days, and if no one submit AFD after 7 days, the notability template on the article should be removed. There was also no one submit AFD for the article within 7 days. Therefore, it can be seen that the Chinese Wikipedia community consent to there is no notability problem for the article on Chinese Wikipedia.--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first AFD vote in April 2016 and later first DRV attempt on Chinese wikipedia, the Chinese article was deleted due to advert-like. After the re-writen in November and later DRV and AFD mentioned above, the Chinese community confirmed that the previous problems do not exsist after the re-writting, so that the article kept. I had a brief look at the English article and found that it was translated from the latest re-writtien version on Chinese Wikipedia, so that the advert-like issue should also not exsist on English Wikipedia as well.--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be useful for this discussion to include the translated DRV and AFD discussions in November 2016 from Chinese Wikipedia:
Extended content
  • Status: Restored
  • Reason for DRV: The previous version was deleted due to advert-like, but it not applied for the new version--葉又嘉 (talk) 15 November 2016 (Tuesday) 14:06 (UTC)
Comment: I considered that article met the policy of CSD G5 was based on previous discussions, and they might be refered for other administrators who considered to restore the article.--Wcam (talk) 15 November 2016 (Tuesday) 15:37 (UTC) Note added by translator: A few days after the article was re-writen by 葉又嘉 on Chinese wikipedia, it was submitted for CSD according to CSD#G5 (which is a policy similar to CSD#G4 on English Wikipedia) by Galaxyharrylion, and then deleted by administrator Wcam. 葉又嘉 then appealed on DRV.
Comment: According to G5, the article can only went through the CSD process if "The content is same or very to similar to the deleted version". However, when 葉又嘉 creating the article, he absolutely re-wrote the content as a third-party, and added new sources. According to "If the content is obviously different to the deleted version, but the nominator still consider it need to be deleted, it must go through AFD instead.", and "In some circumstances, the re-created article have opportunities to develop well. Then it must not be submitted for CSD, and should be submitted for DRV or AFD instead to have a re-discussion". Therefore, the article should not be CSDed, if someone considered it should be deleted, that should be AFD instead.--193.138.220.93 (talk) 16 November 2016 (Wednesday) 01:19 (UTC)
Support: I suggest administrators to compare the two versions of the article and deal with this matter fairly. --維基小霸王 (talk) 18 November 2016 (Friday) 03:31 (UTC)
Support: 張樹人 Tony Chang's Chinese name did covered by media for numerous times, and this time it is confirmed written by third-party.--Wetrace (talk) 19 November 2016 (Saturday) 04:17 (UTC)
--translated from Wikipedia:存廢覆核請求/存檔/2016年10-12月#張樹人 on Chinese Wikipedia by Shujen Chang (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for AFD: From previous CSD G5 request, 張樹人 Tony Chang's name in Chinese is also known by "張上" Tony Chang's birth name "Zhang Shang" in Chinese. The article is his personal political advertisement, and was deleted twice previously. One time was in AFD, and the other time was in DRV. The references are not mainly describing the person in the article. --galaxyharrylion (talk) 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:03 (UTC) Note added by translator: Actually, the previous deletion for the article on Chinese Wikipedia should only be considered as once, as the DRV in May 2016 was an extension of the AFD discussion in April.
  • Keep: No advert-like contents were found, and the references did cover the person in the article. --KRF (talk) 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:17 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: To be dealt with notability process. --Antigng (talk) 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:51 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article was just restored in DRV. --User:Lnnocentius 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:54 (UTC)
  • Keep: No advert-like contents were found. However, if the article was finally deleted, I hope Tony can not be too struggle about that, as that is not good for health. --維基小霸王 (talk) 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 06:23 (UTC)
  • Keep: No advert-like contents were found, and the references did cover the person in the article. --User:ltdccba⇒User_talk:Ltdccba⇒Special:用户贡献/ltdccba⇒ 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 10:31 (UTC)
  • Keep: No advert-like contents were found, and the references did cover the person in the article. --小夏 (talk) 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 11:19 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: No advert-like contents were found. It is suggested to be dealt with notability process. --小弧 (talk) 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 15:49 (UTC)
Result: Weak Keep, To be dealt with notability process. --galaxyharrylion (talk) 26 November 2016 (Saturday) 05:14 (UTC)
--translated from Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2016/11/23#張樹人 on Chinese Wikipedia by Shujen Chang (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed by me to save a little vertical space. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can be seen from the above translated DRV and AFD discussions in November 2016 from Chinese Wikipedia, the article was restored by administrator on Chinese Wikipedia AT in DRV. Even it was submitted for AFD later, no one voted for Delete in that discussion. There were just two users voted Weak Keep due to concern of notability. However, as mentioned above, after the notability template was added to the article on Chinese Wikipedia, as well as listed on notability nomination page for a month, no one submit the article for another AFD any more, and the notability template on the article on Chinese Wikipedia was also removed.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also be useful to add find sources template for my name in Chinese:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Simplified Chinese)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Traditional Chinese)
--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omega625: It seems a new user with just 19 edits who did not understand the nature of the article.
  • SwisterTwister: Explained in responding to Deathlibrarian's comment at 02:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC).
  • Arun Kumar SINGH (AKS.9955): Responded at 23:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC).
  • STSC: Responded at 03:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC).
  • John Pack Lambert: This is due to the misinterpreting by Jsjsjs1111 due to COI as I explained below. There are “lots of people meet Dalai Lama every year”, but are they all not notable and how many of them are reported? Also, I am notable not just because I “met the Dalai Lama”, the context in that article was that I organised some students from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan to meat with Dalai Lama, and my family members in China was threatened by Chinese Government trying to stop me organising the meeting with Dalai Lama, but I still successfully organised that meeting regardless about the threaten and pressures from Chinese Government. In addition, it seems that John Pack Lambert might not support to delete the article this time as not voting delete again, and even helped to improve the quality of the article.
--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timmyshin No offence meant... I said *possibly* bad faith, just going off the comments here about the multiple tags for afd, though that post was by Shujen Chang...is that a sock puppet?? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Deathlibrarian said, actually the Wikipedian Jsjsjs1111 who nominated for the previous AFD had some conflicts with me on Chinese Wikipedia before because of an argument I had with his friend BlackLotux (also known as Edouardlicn, permenently blocked on Chinese Wikipedia due to vamdalism) on VFD discussion of article 发正念 on Chinese Wikipedia, and had prejudice with me due to an incident on Chinese Wikipedia. So that makes Jsjsjs1111 treat article related to me as "spam" and try to delete that. He also misinterpreted many Chinese sources to non-English speaking users in the previous VFD on English Wikipedia leading others to vote delete, which will be explained in details by me later (I did not notice that deletion due to heavy study loads and exams, so that did not involved and explained in that discussion). However, I have already explained on the incident and got unblocked on Chinese Wikipedia mailing lists, and more importantly, to keep or delete an article is based on Wikipedia article criteria, not what the person in the article did on Wikipedia.--Shujen Chang (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Comment: I'm not aware of the backstory, but with the articles referred to in this page, as well as the Four Corners programme, and the ABC article, this would seem to be enough references for a keep. I would be *very* concerned if this article was deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I spent some time reading your links on zh.wiki. So are these things true: 1) you once stole your ex-boyfriend's account (when he went to the bathroom) to vandalize Wikipedia and 2) you have used WP project to promote yourself (you have edited 165 Wikiprojects to link to your user page)? If not, and I apologize if so, I hope you can clarify which IDs you have used on wikipedia and what the relationship between you and the page's creator User:RichardYee is. Timmyshin (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) That incident was my ex's user page on Chinese Wikipedia was vandalised by another user named Ltdccba and Ltdccba said his computer was stolen by me when he went to the bathroom to made the vandalisms on my ex's user page. I denied the accuse, but an administrator permanently blocked me on Chinese Wikipedia without listen to any explanations from me. In the early of 2013, CheckUser was introduced to Chinese Wikipedia, and I was strongly against it as the CheckUser on Chinese Wikipedia might be controlled by Chinese Government to check user’s IP address to persecute users. As I was persecuted by Chinese Government before, I was very sensitive about that. However, it got many administrators from Chinese Wikipedia angry about me as they considered that the benefits (helping them to find out sock puppets to prevent vandalism) were greater than the negative issues, and did not believe that would be a threaten from Chinese Government. They considered what I said was nonsense and making trouble to them, so that they were trying to find excuses to block me on Chinese Wikipedia (as just against setting up CheckUser was not a significant reason to block me according to Wikipedia policies). That was why they blocked me without any actual evidences and regardless any explanations from me. Then I appealed on the Chinese Wikipedia mailing list, finally another administrator unblocked me due to insufficient evidence for accusing me stealing Ltdccba’s computer for vandalisms. I did had some trouble with my my ex before that incident, that was due to I was seriously hurt by him, and I do not want to mention that too much now as it was a sad memory. That incident was already past almost 4 years and there were no such "incidents" after that. Also as I stressed above, what happened in Wikipedia Community to the person in an article cannot be used to determine to keep or to delete the article.2) I am not too understand what are you mean about "you have edited 165 Wikiprojects to link to your user page". I can just declare that I did not involve in any edits on articles of me in any Wikimedia projects. The ID I used on Wikimedia projects now is User:Shujenchang. I previously used an ID User:ZH979433 on Chinese Wikipedia, and that ID was stopped usage on Chinese Wikipedia due to security concerns about the CheckUser was elected on Chinese Wikipedia, as that time I was still in China and feared about potential persecutions from Chinese Government. I returned to Chinese Wikipedia using the username I used on other Wikimedia projects User:Shujenchang after I arrived Australia and became safe. Also, creating user pages on Wikimedia projects is not considered as promotion, and none of these user pages linked to the article about me, except Chinese Wikipedia which was linked by another user named LNDDYL. In addition, I did know an acquaintance whose name is Richard Yee. However, he did not tell me any things about that article, and I will try to check with him to see if he is User:RichardYee and created that article. Btw, I checked User:RichardYee's contributions, it seems mainly translation some article of Chinese dissidents from Chinese Wikipedia to English Wikipedia, such as Draft:Yi Gu translated from 古懿 and this article translated from 張樹人. I had a detailed reading on these too articles, and find that they were just pure translations from related Chinese Wikipedia article, except some later minor edits for adding the English source from SMH and ABC (which are not in Chinese Article).--Shujen Chang (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough, I trust that you are not using sockpuppets to promote yourself this time, so let's forget about what I said. So do you know your biographer 葉又嘉 then? Timmyshin (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know 葉又嘉 before he created that Chinese article. I started to know him only after I got a message from him on Facebook said he saw some news about me and wanted to create an article for me. However, I was actually ignored his message as previously I was even not Facebook friend with him, so that his message went to "message request" inbox and was easy to be ignored. When I realised his message, I found that article was already established by him.--Shujen Chang (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a point of interest, in 11 years of editing on Wikipeida, this is one of the most heavily referenced articles I have seen put up for AFD. There is something amiss here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there's even a link (now dead) purportedly showing his 7th-year math grades. I don't appreciate your constant insinuations; again the article was deleted through discussions once before on en.wiki and twice before on zh.wiki. For a dissident, does he have a large following or influence? I see no evidence of that. To quote User:STSC in the previous discussion, "just showing a banner and making some noises would not make him notable". The mainstream news stories just reiterate his self-told story, which is the same argument for his asylum case, and it's clear they are not about him, but about criticizing the Chinese government. ~1000 Chinese citizens file for political asylum in Australia each year (and tens of thousands in US, UK, Canada and France), and most of them accuse the Chinese government of past persecutions. What makes him different from the rest? Timmyshin (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked that link you mentioned, it was an expansion for what in NTDTV program, not for notability, and might met the policy of WP:USINGPRIMARY. If not, what to do is just to delete that link and related information, not to delete the whole article. I have also declared on Chinese Wikipedia that I had no way to involve in or affact what programs NTDTV make, and my relationship with NTDTV will be explained later. Also as I mentioned in the beginning, the article on Chinese Wikipedia was later restored and kept in discussion on Chinese Wikipedia, and also passed notability process on Chinese Wikipedia as well. In addition, I am not "just showing a banner and making some noises", STSC might misunderstood the previous English article due to its poor writing and mainly based on Chinese sources and I suspected he might not able to understand Chinese. I was covered by media for numerous times because of my experience of being a youth political dissident and persecuted at childhood. There are large amount of Chinese got political asylums every year, but how many of them are reported by media frequently? How many of them are persecuted in childhood? It is unusual for dissidents persecuted at childhood, as most of Chinese children and youth are brainwashed by Chinese Government and support its policies, so a youth dissident like me and even got experience of being persecuted is unique and attracts media attention. For the incident in Wikipedia, I was already explained above.--Shujen Chang (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four Corners (TV series) is a program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The programme ran for 47 minutes, of which less than 2 minutes were devoted to the subject. His story as published on the ABC/Four Corners site is identical to the Canberra Times piece and the Sydney Morning Herald piece (all published around June 5, 2017). I didn't see any Brisbane Times reference in the article. The Yahoo/AFP link only contains a trivial mention. The Daily Mail isn't WP:RS per Wikipedia community. So even if you count the June 5, 2017 story as one "significant coverage", WP:GNG requires "multiple", and the subject fails the criteria. Timmyshin (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but every one of the sources is WP:PRIMARY, i.e. "Chang says..." "According to Chang..." Can you give me a single source that does not quote you directly? Timmyshin (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of them do not quote me directly, such as the article by Radio Free Asia (no pharases such as "Chang says..." or "According to Chang..." used for describing my story of being arrested and persecuted by Chinese Government, and these pharases are used only on my opinions for the case of Kwon Pyong), and the programe in NTDTV (what I said can be considered as primary, but what the host said should be considered as secondary).--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am the author of this article. I am not sure what is happening here. I have some acquaintances with some Chinese dissidents who are in Australia and United States, such as Wu Lebao (吴乐宝), Tony Chang (張樹人) and Gu Yi (古懿). I believe all of them are notable dissidents in Chinese communities. However, I found that there is only English article for Wu Lebao, and the English article for Gu Yi seems is partly translated, and I haven't found English article for Tony Chang at all. Therefore I decide to translate the articles of Gu Yi and Tony Chang and from Chinese Wikipedia to English Wikipedia according to the writing styles of other articles on English Wikipedia, because I think both of them are living in English speaking countries and worthy to be concerned by English speakers as well. Additionally, I noticed that there are some English sources for Tony Chang, which are not included in the Chinese article, so after the translation, I added them to the English article. I cannot understand why this article should be removed at all. As I presented, I believe Tony Chang has enough notability, and I hope the article could be kept.--Richard Yee (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe so as well Richard Yee - the article appears to have substantive referencing, and the fact there is a version on Chinese Wikipedia only means there is more reason for their to be an equivalent English language one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That there is a version on Chinese Wikipedia is not a valid rationale for inclusion on English Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just done a Factiva search, just to make sure I have all the references (In English, I can't read Chinese!)I have added three references, a reference to an ABC article, A Canerra Times Article, and a reference to the Four Corners Interview. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are the same reference (ABC and Four Corners are even the same website). This is WP:OVERKILL as mentioned in the previous AFD discussion. Timmyshin (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read and compared the articles in Chinese and English, and found that the English version of the article was mainly a translation of the Chinese version written by the user 葉又嘉 who confirmed had no connections to me before he wrote the Chinese article. In addition, "acquaintance" is different to "friend", and just had some protests and events together did not mean we were friends. Also, "discouraged" is different to "disallowed".--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you mentioned to everybody yourself, the Chinese article was deleted for self-promotion and restored for 葉又嘉 to work on; therefore 葉又嘉 is not the main author of the Chinese version—you yourself are. Essentially you wrote the bulk of the Chinese version, 葉又嘉 removed some fluff, and your "acquaintance" (with whom you participated in many political activities and whose name is mentioned in the article as Yi Songnan) translated it to English. Isn't that true? Timmyshin (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is definately not true. First, when the Chinese article was deleted at the first time in April, it was just suspected as self-promotion but not confirmed. Many user voted delete on Chinese Wikipedia at that time just due to confilicts and prejudice with me as I explained. Then, the restored version is also not the version deleted at the first time. As I mentioned in the notes in translation, 葉又嘉 completely wrote an article different from the one deleted before. However, the new written article by 葉又嘉 was soon CSDed on G5 (which is similar to G4 in English Wikipedia). However, actually it cannot be CSDed according to the policies as that was completely different from the previous deleted version. I believe that CSD happened on Chinese Wikipedia only because of confilicts and prejudice to me as I mentioned to avoid voting process. When 葉又嘉 applied to DRV, the version restored was the version written by him which was just CSDed, not the previous version deleted in April.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it was only suspected but not confirmed, you are denying you wrote the original article? Are you telling me that when 葉又嘉 (who appears to be Taiwanese and who doesn't know you personally according to you) rewrote your biography from scratch in 2016, he could find on the website of your middle school your name among those students who scored 100 in 7th grade math in the 2006-07 semester? According to that webpages's archive [2] your name was listed as 张 上 with a space in the middle, please tell me which Chinese search engine can discover such a webpage by plugging in your name? In my view, only someone extremely familiar with your middle school website can locate that page, such as yourself. Timmyshin (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So who is the IP that added links to your middle school math grades? You don't know? Timmyshin (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was also added by 葉又嘉 not IP. As I said, in the beginning I ignored the message form 葉又嘉, and later when I got his message, I also found that he said he wanted me to give him some more sources about me for him to extend the stub he just created. I then sent him the previous deleted article on Wayback Machine, and also told him that try to ignore about the contents and just look at the sources in the reference list, as someone are unsatisfied with previous contents due to conflicts and prejudice with me. --Shujen Chang (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, User:RichardYee isn't the original translator; he copied and pasted extensively from an original translation saved by User:KoningWA (not sure whether he was the original translator) around 2 years ago here, some sentences were copied verbatim such as "like many Chinese in pre-modern China, Zhang had many names". Because of his sloppy editing, the lede section now says you were born in Linyi, Shandong, when the early life section had Shenyang, Liaoning as your hometown. Timmyshin (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just had a look of KoningWA's edits. It seems KoningWA only worked on the article of another dissident Gu Yi. I also found the user's first edit was copied from the previous deleted version of this article just with a little bit content changed to Gu Yi's experince, and later more contents was changed to Gu Yi. I did not think it is an issue to write an article of a Chinese dissident by refering to an article of another dissident. Also I can see the current version of this article is completely different to the previous deleted version I found, like the difference in the corresponding versions on Chinese Wikipedia. Also "祖籍" (ancestral home) is different from "出生" (born in), and I saw from Chinese Wikipedia said that my "祖籍" was Linyi, Shandong and "出生" was Shenyang, Liaoning. "祖籍" can also be translated as "from", so that also not an issue for this article to say I was from Linyi, Shandong and born in Shenyang, Liaoning.--Shujen Chang (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you claim you are not friends with Richard Yee? Is this not him on your instagram? [3] [4] Timmyshin (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many people I photoed on my Instagram. All of them are my "friends"? In your logic, and based on your behaviours in this discussion, can I also jurging you are "friends" with Jsjsjs1111 as well?--Shujen Chang (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all Richard Yee=Yi Songnan repeatedly shows up in your Instagram. Secondly, your inflammatory question is absurd. I never had any interaction with User:Jsjsjs1111 outside of Wikipedia (and as a matter of fact, on Wikipedia). WP:COI: "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." and "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles". These guidelines are of course meant for User:RichardYee but somehow you are answering everything for him WP:Wikilawyering style. In the Chinese AFD discussions, it's repeatedly brought up that the IP who created your article points to a location in Queensland, Australia, but you apparently didn't deny or confirm the sock-puppetry. Instead you kept writing along the lines of "the allegations lack evidence". While I assume good faith, in 2013 you had admitted to stealing accounts and vandalizing Wikipedia but now you are denying the charges. And it's not just one user who accused you, it's two: Park1996 (your ex, from Tianjin, China) April 9, 2013 and Ltdccba (a Taiwanese guy) May 18, 2013, but now, on this en.wiki discussion, you are writing it was Ltdccba who vandalized Park1996's userspace and blamed you. Do you seriously think that nobody here knows how to read Chinese? You are blaming your opposition to Checkuser in 2013 on your fear of the Chinese government, very conveniently, even when you met Jimmy Wales in 2012 and knew Wikipedia has no ties at all to the Chinese government. Timmyshin (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what you said, you seems to be from a Chinese cultural background. Even if you are not related to Jsjsjs1111 personally, in my opinion, your behaviours in this discussion are very like a member of 50 Cent Party from Chinese Government. A note for other participants: According to an article in Hong Kong communities, most of Deletionist Wikipedians from Chinese Wikipedia are politically concerned, suspected to be members of 50 Cent Party, gaming the Wikipedia system by trying to selectively use Wikipedia policies and guidelines for political censorship purposes, hijacking Chinese Wikipedia using their double standards. Also, as Legacypac and Lankiveil already mentioned in this discussion, someone is suspected to try to delete this article due to political reasons, and to use political considerations over Wikipedia policies to mislead other participants.Then, "advised" not means someone must do something. Also, I am not answering for Richard but responding to you. Additionally, I even found nothing about answering questions for others in WP:Wikilawyering. More importantly, that is also an essay not policie or guideline. By the way, it seems you are more likely to be a lawyer or prosecutor and to try to find me "guity" and "charge" me, and then using so-called "character ground" as a valid reason for deletion (but actually it was even not a valid reason as I explained below), isn't it?--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I was assuming good faith on you initially as I said at 02:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC). However, I am now having this opinion based on following reasons:
  1. "shin" in your username is like a Chinese surname, so that I consider you seems to be from a Chinese cultural background;
  2. You said "Do you seriously think that nobody here knows how to read Chinese" which my understanding is you can read and understand Chinese, so that I consider you seems to be from a Chinese speaking background as well;
  3. You worked frequently on Chinese related articles based on your edits history on English Wikipedia;
  4. You also had some edits on Chinese Wikipedia;
  5. You were acting as a human flesh search engine to dig so-called "dark histories" of me in Wikipedia community and trying to use that as a reason for intervention of this deletion discussion, but actually as I said what happened in Wikipedia community itself is unable to be used to determine keep or delete for an article, as which should be determined based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines (no policies saying an article should be deleted if the subject in the article had so-called "disgusting and abominable behavior" in Wikipedia Community);
  6. You were always misinterpreting Chinese contents and it seems you actually understand them as I said above, like what Jsjsjs1111 did previously;
  7. You are insistent on deleting the article, and keep arguing with users who voted keep in this discussion, trying to let them change their minds, behaving like someone hate me for some reasons;
  8. Comparing your abovementioned behaviours to this article as I mentioned.
--Shujen Chang (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I have never denied using Park1996's account in the incident in April 2013. What I was responding in this discussion previously was about the incident in May 2013. Also, "stealing" is different to "using", which "stealing" is using something without authorisations from its owner. However, as I declared in an appeal in mailing list and village pump on Chinese Wikipedia, it was actually Park1996 gave the password of his Wikipedia account to me and authorised me to use his accounts for any purposes, in which Park1996 violated the rule of WP:NOSHARING, but my appeal was then closed and ignored by Chinese Communited due to long time passed by since that incident. Also "respect to the sentence" is different to "plead the guilty" as well. I said so at that time was due to some threatens from Park1996's father which I am unwilling to mention in details. More importantly as I was keep mentioning, what happened about me in Wikipedia communities itself (even I did found guilty for these accuses) is not revenant to determine to keep or delete this article, as this article deletion discussion can only be determined and considered according to Wikipedia article policies. Please not try to mislead others by using these so-called "incidents" and "accuses".--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you seems to be very concerned about the story of me and Ltdccba in the May 2013 incident, I am now telling you the story happened then although I was really not like to do so. Ltdccba was a Wikipedian in Taiwan who previously lived in Tianjin, and knew about me and Park1996, as well as the broken relationship between me and Park1996. When I was traveling to Taiwan in May 2013, Ltdccba took me to some interesting places in Taiwan. Before I left Taiwan, Ltdccba went to my hotel to have breakfast with me and prepare to send me to airport. During the breakfast, Ltdccba said that he can help to revenge my ex-boyfirend by vandalising his user page on Wikipedia, and also said if that was found by others he will said that was I stealing his computer to do so as I was already left Chinese Wikipedia and he thought that would not influence me. I just responded "as you like", neither opposing or agreeing what he was going to do. Then he did so, and later said that pretended that was me as he said to me previously.--Shujen Chang (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also have a look at how other English users responed to that "incident": "This seems to be like trowing dirt.", "please be careful before you destroy people's names." --Shujen Chang (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also mentioned about the IP users participated in the AFD and DRV discussions in Chinese Wikipedia, I am now listing them below:
  • 98.158.113.80 from United States
  • 109.123.113.231 from United Kingdom
  • 193.138.220.93 from Netherlands
  • No IP users participated
As can be seen, none of these IP users were from Brisbane, even none of them from Australia.--Shujen Chang (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I never said Wikipedia itself having any ties to the Chinese government, but some users participated in Chinese Wikipedia might be controlled by Chinese Government voluntarily or involuntarily, or even worked for Chinese Government as a member of 50 Cent Party as I mentioned above.--Shujen Chang (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another very important point I considered to be addressed: You were keep mentioning my ex-boyfriend, and as I mentioned above that you are very likely to be from a Chinese cultural background even Chinese speaking background. According to Hanteng said in the village pump discussion on Chinese Wikipedia I mentioned above "Homophobia is popular in Chinese society", I might also be treated unfriendly due to the LGBT background. Please also be aware of this potential prejudice and discrimination, especially if other users from Chinese Wikipedia to be involved in this discussion later.--Shujen Chang (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Timmyshin said "Do you seriously think that nobody here knows how to read Chinese", that was also a problem that I conceded. It seems currently only I and Timmyshin are able to read Chinese, and most of the English users cannot understand Chinese to make decisions based on contents in Chinese. I also strongly believe that the article was previously deleted in English Wikipedia was also due to no understanding for Chinese and misleading by Jsjsjs1111 (at that time the article was lack of English sources for determination). Even later there are more Chinese users involved in this discussion, there also might be problems due to WP:COI for political reasons and the LGBT discrimination issue as I just mentioned above. My suggestion is that Google Translate might be useful for someone who are really interested to know the Chinese contents. Although the Google Translate is not too accurate sometimes, it was still useful for establishing some understandings.--Shujen Chang (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't you refer to him as "My friend Richard Yee" on your website? So now he's suddenly not a friend because he created your article? Timmyshin (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word in Chinese "朋友" can refer to many different words in English including "friend" and "acquaintance". It is like the Chinese word "道歉" can refer to English words such "regret", "sorry" and "apologies". There are differences of these words in level of depth in English. Please note the differences between Chinese language and English language and not ignore the context.--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timmyshin: this kind of "opposition research" is absolutely inappropriate and irrelevant here. What a user did on another Wiki is rarely relevant in an administrative proceeding here. This is NOT an administrative proceeding against this editor, but an AfD! Focus on the article content. @Shujenchang: - you should be careful to avoid being brought into this kind of personal discussion, charges and countercharges. The WP:ARBITRATION process has led to a huge crackdown on "WP:ASPERSIONS", which is to say, don't try to call someone a member of the 50 Cent Party even if it is a damn good guess he is, unless you have some very solid proof. Even then they would probably want you to deliver evidence in email to them, so they can do what they want and nobody ever finds out why. Arbcom is NOT sympathetic and if they are called on to settle this case they will probably do it the way they usually do it, by banning or severely restricting everyone involved. They do not have sympathy to someone for being bullied - they just don't want to hear the argument again. This is not how I want you to be treated but I have been on Wikipedia a while and I know it could happen. Don't get taken out in a 1 on 1 fight, especially not if you think it *is* a shill you're fighting. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: I agree that Timmyshin's behaviour here has been less than optimal, and would second your advice to him regarding what would happen if this case came before ArbCom. Timmy, this is very dangerous territory you are wandering into, and it really isn't clear why you would want to: you could have the moral high ground here so easily that it doesn't make sense not to take it. Just strike the bit about his website and the bit about his ex-boyfriend, and this would all be a lot easier for you and those of us who agree with you on the subject-matter.
That said, Wnt, I think OUT (which is what "opposition research" implies) is a really iffy policy to apply in this case, as the "opposition" is the subject of the article under discussion, and while looking for sources to improve the article one couldn't help but engage in "research" on them. The comment to which you responded above came from a week ago, and the website in question is linked to in the article under discussion. Additionally, no one could look at the page history and not notice that it was written by a new and quasi-SP account, and given that an article on the subject was, just over a year ago, deleted in accordance with community consensus that in itself is problematic. Technically, OUT would only apply to RichardYee, not Shujen, in this case, as Shujen is the subject of the article and his website is linked at the bottom of the article. As far as I can tell, no personal information was revealed, or even attempted to be revealed, in any of Timmy's posts that wasn't already visible in the article itself or somewhere else on-wiki, or on the linked website.
Now, if the subject of the article and the owner of the new account in question have both admitted, on-wiki and/or (publicly) off-wiki, to having been in contact before the creation of the article, that is an extremely serious breach of the COI policy. I don't know or care about the nature of their real-world relationship. The more common meaning of 朋友 (as I understand it from my limited study of modern Mandarin and the primary definitions of both characters I found in a character dictionary used by Japanese high school students to study classical Chinese) is "friend", so the way Timmy translated it was not deliberately misleading as Shujen implies. But even if it just meant "acquaintance" in this context it is still a problem. We aren't supposed to write articles on ourselves or people we know, and we aren't supposed to recreate articles that have been deleted without good reason, and in this case it seems the creator of the article under discussion has done both.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am more concerned about the general principle of focusing on the edit, not the editor. It is hard for me to follow all the twists and turns of whether Tony Chang knew someone who translated the Chinese article or not. I think we can all agree that there has been some COI editing going on, which is strongly discouraged but not literally prohibited -- it is this kind of proceeding that is why it is strongly discouraged. COI can earn the article a "connected contributor" template and a trip to AfD --- but what happens here now should depend on the article text itself. Has COI editing introduced false or improperly sourced information or caused the deliberate and systematic omission of contradictory viewpoints to such a degree that we need to scrap the article and start over? Is there not enough information to form a neutral article (lack of notability)? I don't think so. Remember, having an article is not a service to the subject of the article, but a service to the readers of Wikipedia. There are some readers who have seen some of these news items about Chang and they are wondering what it is all about. They should be our only loyalty here. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am more concerned about the general principle of focusing on the edit, not the editor. Setting aside the fact that you alluded to WP:OUT, which is both unrelated to and far more serious than the principle of focusing on content rather than controbutors themselves, in this case it is difficult to argue that that principle applies to the above comments. Per WP:WIAPA, it would technically be a personal attack to claim that the article creator had a COI without posting the evidence, and since both RichardYee and ShujenChang edit under their real names and the subject of the article is Shujenchang, linking to the official website of the subject as part of the evidence of the COI is neither outing nor a personal attack. It's very difficult to "focus on content" when the content in question is a biographical article on a Wikipedia editor, and the editor with whom one is discussing is said Wikipedia editor. Yes, it would be nice if Timmyshin was less confrontational in his language, but ShujenChang has done the same and arguably worse. It's not clear why you told Timmy off but not Shujen, if all you were concerned with was focusing on the edit rather than the editor: is it because you agree with Shujen that the page should not be deleted, and want to undermine Timmy's arguments by presenting the incivility as one-sided and Shujen as not actually the worse offender on this point? (your behaviours in this discussion are very like a member of 50 Cent Party from Chinese Government, some users participated in Chinese Wikipedia might be controlled by Chinese Government, and all the baseless insinuation of homophobia in the comment dated 14:53, 25 June 2017 -- if anyone wants a more comprehensive list ... I'm sorry, I'd rather focus on content. This isn't ANI and I hope it doesn't come to that.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I told the article subject off more gently (you cannot say I was not warning him against personal attacks) because he is the subject of the article. Everyone else can walk away without a second thought, but the subject ... well, we tell the subjects of our articles they should walk away, it's generally for the best, but we do so because it's hard, and triply so when our own processes are confused and show signs of political bias one way and the other. And if we lose a subject's input entirely, that robs us of a chance at information we might not easily come across otherwise. So I want to be as sympathetic as I can without lulling him into a false sense of security. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did specifically preface your gentle warning with you should be careful to avoid being brought into [emphasis added] this kind of personal discussion, charges and countercharges, which implies that it was Timmyshin who first escalated the dispute to being about Wikipedians rather than their edits, but this is not the case. I have not read Deathlibrarian's first string of comments (if they were the one who first made this personal, you should have called our them rather than either Timmy or Shujen), but the first comment by either Timmy or Shujen that was primarily "personal" was this one, which implies that it was Timmy, and not Shujen, who was "drawn in". And I too think it would be best if everyone, including the subject, could walk away from this. You know what would be a good way of facilitating that? Deleting the article. Shujen had a friend of his create this article, apparently as a translation of the Chinese article, while the previous English article was apparently written as a quasi-advert, presumably by someone else close to Shujen (I don't know, as the page has been deleted). Given this background, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Shujen was in some form of off-wiki contact with 葉又嘉, the author of the current zh.wiki article. Editors who don't want to have to deal with discussion of their off-wiki personas on-wiki should read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing -- as far as I am concerned, Shujen should be the most in favour of the article being deleted, and the fact that he doesn't appear to be should raise red flags. And I'm saying this as someone who has had multiple articles on me and people close to me written based on the piecemeal mentions of us in off-wiki reliable sources, by an on- and off-wiki stalker who wanted to harass me. Your telling of Timmyshin for supposedly making this personal, and specifically framing your cautionary message to Shujen in an enabling way that implies he was not the one who made it personal, is somewhat inexplicable if you are acting in good faith -- it looks more like you are trying to drag editors who have !voted for deletion through the mud, while specifically ignoring the violations of editors on your "side" (which would also explain your action below where you accused me of making off-topic comments, when what I was actually doing was telling off Newimpartial for making off-topic comments). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now it looks like you're the one casting aspersions -- if you have no knowledge of anything untoward involving 葉又嘉, why bring it up? And I didn't see anything obviously personal in your oldrevision link or in the diff before or after it. I can believe the interchange I saw above was not the beginning of the story, but there it looked like Shujenzhang was responding there to my eye. Wiki editing is to me a short-range art -- if I have to look at every edit every person has ever made to decide whether they are right or wrong, whether an article should be kept or deleted, how would I ever make a decision? I object to opposition research (which isn't just a Wiki admin term) when I see it, I focus on the text at hand, and I don't vote to delete articles as therapy or as a referendum on how their subject edits Wikipedia. So long as we've got the basics like a few good sources that pass GNG and no evidence of contamination with falsified or plagiarized information, that really is the end of the story as far as I'm concerned, and there's no Scheherazade story you can tell me that is going to get me to delete the article based on who knows who or what the meaning of some Chinese word for friend is! Wnt (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Tony said, I don't think translating for article about him is a problem either.--Richard Yee (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't your name mentioned in the article alongside Tony Chang and Gu Yi, whose article you just created, as the three authors of the open letter which was signed by ~40 people (seemingly less than the number of people who participated in the 4 AFD discussions on Chang)? So your article is next, I assume? Timmyshin (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the next article will be edited by me is Wu Lebao, because after I read the English article for him, I found many contents in the Chinese article for him are not included, so I wanna translate them. However you forced me to enrol this unnecessary conflict launched by you, I don't have a good mood to translate anything currently. As Tony said you "are very like a member of 50 Cent Party" with reasons convincing me, so I just wanna ask are your next deletions are articles of Gu Yi and Wu Lebao? Unfortunately, the fact might be disappointed for you. They seemingly don't have the so-called "dark histories" in Wikipedia community for you to dig as Tony have, to become an "evidence" in your hand. So I believe deleting their articles might be more difficult.--Richard Yee (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not involved with Chinese wikipedia or connected in any way with writing or translating this page. I see a well referenced extensive article on a notable Chinses dissident. Given the nature of his activism we should be very sensitive to the fact some people will want to see such pages deleted for political purposes. Closing admin should weigh the votes of completely uninvolved editors like myself more heavily than those of potentially POV editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the same token, we should also be very sensitive that some people will vote keep only for political purposes. If there are any POV concerns, you should point them out directly, and not attack the strawman. Timmyshin (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the user Jsjsjs1111 nominated for the previous deletion is a strong opposer of Falun Gong, according to what he said on his Chinese Wikipedia userpage as well as his edits on both English and Chinese Wikipedia. He was suspecting I was a member of Falun Gong when nominate deletion of the article on Chinese Wikipedia in April 2016, but actually I am not at all (I am a buddhist, which is completely different from Falun Gong). He also treat the NTDTV source in the article as unrealiable source just because of its Falun Gong background. However, there is no consensus in both Chinese and English Wikipedia on whether NTDTV is RS or not. As Chinese user Wetrace said in that discussion, it was not an issue to use NTDTV as a reference in the article.--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject of a story on national TV in Australia, if that's not GNG I don't know what is. It does appear that some of the activity here, both for and against, is based more on political considerations with regard to the PRC than it is to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. For full disclosure, I have met Tony a couple of times and we're both students at QUT, although I would not say I know him well and I haven't participated in any of his political activity. Lankiveil 02:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • User:Lankiveil Where did you get the idea that he was a subject of a national story when he appeared for less than 100 seconds in a 47-minute program about China? At least 10 other individuals are also shown in that segment, do they all deserve an article because the show was national TV? Timmyshin (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV programmes might cut a lot due to the time limit. However, there was a detailed report about me by ABC according to their interview, which also be republished on media such as SMH. As you said "at least 10 other individuals are also shown in that segment", then how many of them also mentioned detailedly in ABC reports?--Shujen Chang (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I believe, Feng Chongyi also meets the notability policies on Wikipedia, just no one write for him yet. For Lupin Lu, in that report she was just mentioned about 5 pragraphs which was less than half of mine, and the part for her was just for the current event of monitoring students in Australia without any of her previous stories mentioned. Also, there are numerous other media coverage for my stories in Chinese, which is different to her as well.--Shujen Chang (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your segment: 396 words (per the SMH link), 1'18 in video length. Her segment: 297 words, 1'34. Timmyshin (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are ignoring my point of Chinese sources I previously mentioned (and just explained deeply). Also, 396 is greater than 297, and I was mainly talking about the ABC report related to the TV programe rather than only the TV programe itself.--Shujen Chang (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I found that another person Chau Chak Wing who was in that TV program as well also had Wikipedia article.--Shujen Chang (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep The only support I've seen for Delete has come from people with a history of disputation either with this article's subject or with Chinese dissidents in general. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Newimpartial I don't know who you are referring to, but I've had no history of disputation (or interaction for that matter) with the subject before this AFD, nor any disputation with Chinese dissidents in general. You claim you've "seen" something, what's your evidence? Timmyshin (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't anything personal, Timmyshin, and I was thinking mostly of the Wang Dan nomenclature issue, etc. You might want to drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reported by different media frequently for numerous political activities, events, as well as my experinces of being persecuted by Chinese Government in childhood (as can be seen from the sources in the article) which I believe is not a case of WP:BLP1E.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Power~enwiki Exactly. What is he notable for? 1) He's not notable as a persecution victim. According to his own story, he was arrested when he was 14 and released a few hours later. 2) He's not notable as a dissident activist. His open letter last year got "38 signatures" and "Signatures amount for the letter grew to more than 40 later on." [www.change.org/p/dictator-xi-jinping-free-kwon-pyong-and-other-kidnapped-citizens-and-stop-fascist-repression-for-your-future 78 Supporters on change.org] As a comparison, Fang Zheng and Yang Jianli's open letter for example got [www.change.org/p/xi-jinping-tell-us-what-happened-to-the-two-tank-men more than 6000 supporters on the same website]. And Mr. Chang here is supposed to be a notable cyber-activist (per article). Timmyshin (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) It is not only a personal story, but it is realised as a political issue because of numerous media coverage for this, which is verifiable, no matter how long I was detained.--Shujen Chang (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a youth dissident and student activist. As I said above, most of Chinese youth are brainwashed by Chinese Government or do not have the brave to against the Chinese Government even with the knowlege of truth. It is very rare for person as me stand against Chinese Government from such young age and even being persecuted despite of how long I was detained, which attracted attentions from mainstream media.--Shujen Chang (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) That can not be determined just based on numbers for signing, but the target and range of participants. First, we are targeted only Chinese oversea students, not everyone in the society. Then, the range of our participants covered students from high school to PhD students from different countries and education institutions.--Shujen Chang (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - With all the references which have been listed over and over in ths AFD, it is quite obvious that this subject clearly passes WP:GNG. The subject is notable. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat worried that almost all the sources are in Chinese and the remaining ones appear to be trivial coverage of him in discussion of Chinese democracy. However, with the two editors above discussing in such detail, I feel it's going to be impossible to find a consensus until they both quiet down. This is clearly not a situation for a snow keep; (the same sources from Chinese wikipedia are used), though I would not recommend anyone attempt to speedy-delete the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not admin and therefore can't see the deleted version under the other name, but what anyway is the relevant scope of 'sufficiently identical'? Is a textually different article based on identical sources 'sufficiently identical', for example? Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I believe this is actually a new translation rather than an entirely new article, but I'm not certain about that either. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyway, I wouldn't see it as a good G4 because in the original AfD discussion, it seems that only the nominator read Chinese so the only information about the Chinese-languages sources was fed through that filter. Also, the discussion seemed to have been influenced by the deletion of the Chinese-language article on the subject, which has since been reversed and which has survived a subsequent AfD. Looking for English-language sources, a prefunctory search gives me enough leads that I am not really in doubt of the notability of the subject; the tone of the article is another matter. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous deletion was nominated on 27 May 2016 and deleted on 12 June 2016. Any Chinese sources after that time are new sources, such as 1, 4, 6, 7, 15, 17 and 24 in the current version. So many new sources are added actually.--Shujen Chang (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete- Has anyone saying keep actually read the article? Nothing is notable about him. He is a political dissident from China. Not notable. And other than that... ? Nothing. There aren't even attempts at establishing notability. We simply CANNOT give every political refugee a WP article. El cid 18:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I just read more of the comments saying keep, none of them raise valid WP policy. "Well this person has a page so I should have one too" is not a valid reason. Appearing on a TV special does not make anyone notable, unless the entire special is about you. If WP China has an article about you, congratulations, but their decisions are wholly non-binding here. This should be an easy deletion. It IS an easy deletion. Hell, this should be a speedy deletion. El cid 18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful when you remove something for "unsourced" if they are in Chinese sources, if you do not understand Chinese.--Shujen Chang (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On AN/I you were advised [5] by four long-term editors (including myself) -- two of them admins -- to discontinue your participation here, since you claim doing so was creating psychological problems. I suggest you follow that sdvice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is the English-language encyclopedia, and, as far as I can see, there is only one English-language reference by which English speakers can determine the notability of the subject. (Three of the English-language sources are the same article, and one is The Daily Mail, which has been determined not to be a reliable source. The one article is not a sufficient hook upon which to hang the subject's notabilty.) For me, that counts as insufficient evidence of notability, as I'm not willing to posit that the references in Chinese amount to a legitimate claim of notability. When there are additional English-language sources which support the claim of notability, then the article can be re-created (with the Chinese sources). Given the subject's residency in Australia, it seems to me that there ought to be more English sources which discuss him, if he is indeed notable, but those are conspicuous by their absence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian broadcast coverage, though, which AFAIK has nothing to do with the Daily Mail piece. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the sources cited, or are you simply stating generalities? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to state it again, this RfC detyermined that the Daily Mail is no longer considered to be a reliable source, so it does not count. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not true, though, that if the ABC and the SMH run the same article, then both contribute to establishing the notability of the subject? Also, there simply is no rule stating that only English-language sources "count" for notability. If you look at the Voice of Tibet piece, for example, it looks to me (as a non-Chinese speaker) like a reliable source discussing the subject at some length. Can anyone tell me otherwise? I have difficulty seeing how someone would attract coverage from Aljezeera, the SMH, Voice of Tibet and from Thailand, without being WP:Notable (or having a garage band :p). If so, it should be some kind of achievement. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, Wikipedia policy wise, if an article is notable for one language Wikipedia, then it would pass the notablility for all Wikipedia. In any case, as has been pointed out by Newimpartial there are multiple english language source, and they aren't all copied from the same source as far as I can see. If it would help, should we get someone from the WP:CELE team to look at the chinese articles and translate them??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ther is no such thing as a Wikipedia-wide standard of notability - the Foundation does not get involved in content in that way. Each separate Wikipedia sets it's own standards for notability, so what happened on zh.Wiki has no bearing on what should happen here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different language Wikipedia's have different criteria for notability. For example the Polish Wikipedia considers all professors to be notable, while the English-language Wikipedia has never gone this far. Each language Wikipedia has adopted its own guidelines on notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, it's also true that the English Wikipedia does not base its notability criteria on the language of the references: if they're reliable ones, then we don't care what language they're written in so long as somebody has the ability to read and translate them if needed. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." North America1000 04:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is a student who was granted political assylum. His level of involvement of protests is just not high enough to justify a stand alone article. There is no need for sources to be in English, English language is about the language used in the articles not about what sources we use of what subjects we cover, but nothing here shows the level of reliable source coverage that would justify having a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert I'm in Australia, and I can verify that both the Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC and the Four Corners programme are all WP:RS, and in fact, probably the three most respected media outlets in Australia, in particular Four Corners. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same article word for word. Did no one actually read the sources? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken is correct about this: if the same article gets reposted by three different sources, that's not three data points toward WP:GNG even if all three sources are technically reliable ones. Because it's the same article, all three reposts count as only one source, not three distinct ones. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However these sources are not enough focused on Chang to justify a stand alone article. He is more used to illustrate a larger point than a subject in his own right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC) -[reply]
I must disagree with you there - see "Tony Chang talks to Four Corners" - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-04/tony-chang-talks-to-four-corners/8585542 John Pack Lambert - and in terms of WP:RS, and for those unfamiliar with Australian Media, the ABC is our BBC equivalent. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Please take a moment to stop answering in generalities and actually read the cited references. (2) No matter how reliable the source, if the content is sufficiently focused on the subject, it's not enough to estbalish notability. The mention of my name in a recent {New York Times article does not make me notable, despite the reliability of the Times as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken How does the mentioning of your name in an article equate to where Tony Chang's name is mentioned in the title of one of the references? "Tony Chang talks to Four Corners". Am I missing something here? As for having read them, I did.... in fact I added some of them myself after sourcing them on Factiva. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't read the sources, have you? I suggest to the closer that the !vote of Deathlibrarian be ignored, as they are clearly just here to !vote "keep" for whatever reason, unrelated to Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert Hi, mate. I am confusing that I saw you have helped improve the article such as correcting grammar. But if you want the article to be deleted, why did you help improve the article? Is there anything changed your mind? Is it because of Tony's experience with his ex-boyfriend? I had a look at your user page. Actually I am also a member of LDS, but I don't mind others have homosexuality in social issues at all, and I also don't mind to participate in political activists with people with different types of sexualities. Besides that, Tony is the famous student activities in Chinese dissidents group. His role is very important for Chinese democratisation. He has the report of the most famous news program ABC 4 Corners, as well as many media reports in Chinese. No matter what style is this argue, He deserves to have his own article.--Richard Yee (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer for JBL, but I'll tell you my thinking when I do the same thing: I do not believe the article should be kept, but if by chance it is, I'd like it to meet Wikipedia's standards. Editing the article to improve it does not necessarily imply that one thinks the article should be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last comment/statement: Actually, I just want to be fairly treated. If the article did not meet the notability criteria according to policies and guidelines in English Wikipedia here (such as if really only English sources should be counted for GNG purpose), I will be respect to the final result even if it is delete. I admit I did had some so-called “dark histories” in Chinese Wikipedia community, and also never denied about the vandalism in the April 2013 incident with my ex as I said above, and really felt sorry about that, but I was really seriously hurt at that time and it is easier for me lose control especially I had experienced of traumata as in the article and I said in ANI. However, I still aware that is not an excuse for me in that incident, even I was not intentional to make any troubles in the Chinese Wikipedia Communities. The Chinese article (later restored after re-establishment) once deleted due to prejudice from other voters. As I stated above, what I hope is this discussion not to be affected by subjective prejudice, discriminations, or any other considerations about myself as a person like what happened in Chinese Wikipedia. As I explained, the deletion process should only be based on objective policies, not the consideration about the subject in the article. As Beyond My Ken and others in ANI suggested, I will leave this discussion now (even later Timmyshin is still here), and look back for the result one or two month later. Bye everyone.--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (was Keep) I would prefer a merge but see no plausible target. List of Chinese dissidents isn't suitable as a target. Based on User:Deathlibrarian's comments on sources, I support keeping this article if a merge target doesn't exist. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do me a favor, read the English-language sources for yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at the SMH one. It's mostly coverage of him in the context of Opposition to the Chinese Communist Party in Australia; I'd support a merge/redirect if such a page existed. Some of the trivial coverage of him only found in Chinese-language sources needs to be removed, but I don't feel the article is purely promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you must look at all three (excludingthe one from the Daily Mail) since they're exactly the same article. Please don't !vote here if you haven't actually looked at the article and checked the sources. There is, essentially only 1 source for this article taht's accessible to 99% of the editors of en.Wiki, and it is not sufficient to establish notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I see what you're saying now. This SMH link: [6] and this ABC link: [7] are the exact same content. I refuse to read the Daily Mail. Some of the Chinese links (specifically The Epoch Times) are definitely not acceptable for notability. Is there any other English-language source presented, or a credible claim of importance (not simply coverage) in any of the Chinese ones? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the versions, but I gather from what Tony Chang (who I think is Shujen Chang himself said, it was a promotional type article in the past, but that material has been removed, it has been re written (may be as a result of a previous attempt at deleting the article). Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact, you haven't really checked anything, have you? For whatever reason (I won't speculate) you just want the article kept. Fortunately for the closer, you haven't actually cited any evidence-based policy for it to be kept, so your opinion really shouldn't carry much weight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you Beyond My Ken- if you want to get personal, that's really your Kharma. I've stated my opinion on it. I'd recommend you go and read this Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks before continuing your work on wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to argue with me (and have no interest in actually evaluating the article), then stop pinging me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's clear to me this will be closed as keep. I still support a merge if a target exists, but nobody has suggested one. There's no case for deletion at this time; there is sufficient sourcing and the COI and promotional concerns have been addressed. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP written by new user, recreation of content previously deleted by community consensus. This page should have been speedied. If I'm missing something, let me know -- I didn't read the massive wall of text above, nor do I intend to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since posting the above, my opinion on the problem has become more nuanced. I still think the best reason for deleting (and perhaps salting, as DGG suggests) is that new, nearly-SPA accounts should not be unilaterally overturning previous AFD consensuses. But there is also the lack of reliable, third-party, independent sources covering the subject in detail (most of the sources are either written by the subject himself or those associated with him, or published by geopolitical entities with their own bones to pick with Beijing, or both). There is also an apparent lack of understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines on the part of several of the "keep" !votes (in my interactions with them below they seemed to think that a source can be "inherently reliable", regardless of context, and also believe thay GNG is simply about the article having a certain number of references, regardless of whether any of those references allow us to put together an article that is in accordance with our policies), and the serious COI problems with the subject himself's involvement in this AFD. On top of that, Shujen actually, in the form of an Easter Egg link, accused another user of having a conflict of interest a bit above here, just because said user had conflicted with him on-wiki and then later nominated the article for deletion. Yes, the AFD closer would probably ignore everything the subject of the article said in the article's defense anyway, but when said subject claims that it is the "delete" !voters who have the COI and so should be ignored ... well, I dunno. It just seems completely inappropriate, even if it's not got much to do with whether the article should be deleted one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum09:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC): I am not sure who Hijiri is suggesting believes in "inherent reliability", but that is certainly not my position as should be painfully clear to anyone who reads the discussion below. I agree that Shujen's comments should be set aside by the closer as should, indeed, be most of the accusations and counteraccusations of COI that have turned this thread into a morass. The questions at issue are simply whether the subject is N and whether RS for the article exist.)
Key points:
  • not the same article previously deleted, so should not have been speedied;
  • previous AfD discussion influenced by deletion on Chinese wikipedia, but the article has since been restored there and survived AfD there;
  • new version of the article includes English-language and international RS for N not available in the deleted article;
  • There are a very limited number of reasons why an article might be deleted once but this not having any relation to whether another article should be recreated with the same name. The original article doesn't appear to have been deleted as a copyvio, so the words being different doesn't change anything. If a new account comes along and recreates an article on a topic whose article was once deleted, the standard practice should be for the article to be userfied. It's generally considered out of line for new accounts to decide they can overrule community consensus like that.
  • The article was not deleted based solely on zh.wiki (which presumably has different inclusion criteria than en.wiki; god knows ja.wiki does). Nor should it be kept based on zh.wiki.
  • Dubious. Remember, interviews are primary sources and don't help with GNG, and profiles clearly reliant on first-hand reports are ... well, they are technically usable, but not ideally.
  • "AFD is NOTCLEANUP" has been a really terrible argument virtually every time I have seen it used. If someone thinks an article can be improved to address its problems, they should do so. Don't just make strawman arguments about other editors appear to you to be arguing based on the current poor state of this or that article.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Hijiri, I am not sure that you understand WP:NOTCLEANUP and the context in which this argument is intended to be used. If you are basing your AfD !vote on an article being poorly-written, or poorly-sourced, then you are simply not doing what AfD is intended to do.
A deletion nomination, where there isn't something urgent copyright violation or an attack page (which is really CSD rather than AfD territory anyway), is to be decided according to whether the subject of the article is Notable and whether sources exist to establish information about the subject that is reliable and free of bias, and to ensure that the article does not represent a topic that is inappropriate to wikipedia. If these three criteria are met, then the current state of the writing and sourcing of the article is truly irrelevant to its deletion, which is what people mean when they say that "AfD is not cleanup." Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that 90% of the time NOTCLEANUP is invoked, it is a strawman argument. I am not "basing my AFD !vote on an article being poorly-written, or poorly-sourced"; I am basing my !vote primarily on the fact that a new account should not be unilaterally overruling a previous AFD and the subject of the article should not be condoning that behaviour, and secondarily on the fact that I don't believe it can be anything but poorly written and poorly sourced.
And no, you are wrong to say that A deletion nomination, where there isn't something urgent copyright violation or an attack page (which is really CSD rather than AfD territory anyway), is to be decided according to whether the subject of the article is Notable and whether sources exist to establish information about the subject that is reliable and free of bias. This is another misunderstanding that I have seen showing up in virtually every AFD I have ever participated in. There are lots of reasons to delete this or that page besides notability. Some topics are not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about and some topics can't be nuanced properly (a requirement of WP:NPOV) because of the BLP policy.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the part of my previous comment where I referred to topics that are inappropriate for Wikipedia? You are right that I did not refer to WP:NPOV requirements, but I don't see how they might apply in this case. For an article to be appropriately AfDed, there actually has to be a reason for deletion, and the only ones offered in this entire meandering discussion have been notability and sourcing. If you have another reason for deletion here, please go forth, but the fact that it was deleted before is not, in itself, a reason.
If the previous AfD decision was wrong (it certainly didn't attract much attention), or if it was right at the time but that the situation or sourcing have changed, then it should absolutely be "overruled" precisely as a matter of correct application of policy. And you can't argue that anything about this AfD is "unilateral" - indeed, its seen some of the broadest participation on a BLP AfD that I've seen in recent months. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but I don't see how [NPOV requirements] might apply in this case NPOV requirements apply to all articles, including BLPs on Chinese dissidents. We should be extremely careful not to present the views of the subject in a sympathetic manner, as that would not be neutral. But do any sources exist that discuss the subject and his views and actions in a neutral manner or in a manner sympathetic to those opposing him? the fact that it was deleted before is not, in itself, a reason. Yes, it is. New accounts are not allowed show up and immediately overrule a previous AFD, regardless of whether they (or you) think the primary rationale for the earlier deletion was no longer valid.
it should absolutely be "overruled" precisely as a matter of correct application of policy Are you in off-wiki contact with the user who created the new article or something? It's difficult to see how any normal Wikipedia editor could come to that conclusion in good faith. You and I can disagree on whether the topic deserves an article on its merits, but you can't argue that I'm wrong on the procedural issues here. And you can't argue that anything about this AfD is "unilateral" - indeed, its seen some of the broadest participation on a BLP AfD that I've seen in recent months I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. I never said this AFD was unilateral. I said the recreation of the article after the previous deletion discussion was unilateral. The AFD has seen an unusually large number of edits by the subject himself (and I won't hide the fact that I came here because of said subject forum-shopping the dispute to ANI), but apart from that (and some honestly somewhat ridiculous back-and-forth between you, mee, BMK, the article's creator and one or two others) I don't see anything exceptional. Given that your very first edit to an AFD was last month, I don't know why you would choose to say "in recent months".
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a thing as lurking, Hijiri. You might want to try it sometime.
And what is the rule that new accounts are not allowed to create new articles on a subject that was previously subject to AfD? I would like to see this rule. You and BMK both seem to have access to "policy" that has not been adequately documented for us ordinary editors.
Finally, if you are arguing that this article should be deleted because its sources lead it to present the subject too sympathetically, so that WP:NPOV is impossible, I would like to see you actually make this argument. The nominator most certainly did not, nor have any of the Delete !voters up to now. Newimpartial (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, according to you, the previous AfD was influenced by the deletion zh.wiki, which shouldn't have been the case, but this current AfD should be influenced by the fact that the article was restored at zh.wiki. In point of fact, nothing that happened at zh.wiki, except editor behavior has any bearing on what happens here. Further, the article has one (count 'em, one) acceptable English-language reference. Of the four listed, one is the Daily Mail, which is not a reliable source, and the other three are duplicates of the same article published in three different media outlets. Notability is not established. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) The situation here is that Hijiri asked if they were missing anything, and I answered.
Also, BMK, you are mis-stating my position about zh.wiki - I am saying that because the previous en.wiki AfD was influenced by a previous zh.wiki decision that has since been reversed, that previous en.wiki decision should not be used as a precedent for this proccess (in addition to the fact that the sourcing and text are both different; only the subject is the same). Please don't straw-man me.
As far as your "one English source" argument, I haven't seen a reply to my previous question, whether when the ABC and the SMH (both RS) run with the same story, both might contribute to the notability of the subject. Nor for that matter have you replied to my question about the Chinese-language sources such as Voice of Tibet, which appear to demonstrate the Notability of the subject (this is certainly not an under-sourced article, whatever its flaws).
I don't have a dog in this fight, but you, BMK, seem determined that the article be deleted, perhaps to maintain consistency with the previous AfD (I don't know). Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, to maintain consistency with our policies and practices. I really don't give a shit about the subject of the article, or very much about the article itself, but I do care that we run this place as it's intended to be run, and not bend over backwards to keep an article about someone who is clearly unnotable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the interpretation of policies and practices is achieved through consensus and messy discussions like this one, not by deference to your omniscient (minority) viewpoint. You appear to be too angry to put up with the necessary process, because you are the custodian of "how this place is intended to be run". Breathe. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're being ridiculous. We're English Wikipedia, and editors here aren't expected to be able to read, write and understand any language except English. Foreign language sources are certainly acceptable, but when they're relied on for notability in the obvious absence of any English-language sources which establish notability, that's got absolutely zero to do with WORLDVIEW and everything to do with the notability not actually being established. As for the idea that the same article published in two places confers double the amount of notability - sorry, but that's totally a crackpot idea. (And I mean that literally, the network for WP:FRINGE ideas is full of articles which get constantly republished from outlet to outlet, and the ideas expressed don't get any more mainstream each time they get republished -- so your argument is extraordinarily poor.)
So, this is my last comment in this very misguided AfD. I may get a couple of details wrong, because I don't intend to read the article again, but this is what we've got: A kid in Taiwan criticizes the government and is investigated for it. He leaves Taiwan to study in Australia (despite being a big, bad, dangerous dissident whom the government would presumably like to keep under its thumb) and while he's there he asks for and is granted asylum. He criticizes the democracy of Australia. His family in Taiwan is visited by the police again. The end.
Where's the story? Where's the notability? Where's the indication that this person actually did anything remotely noteworthy except be interviewed for a news story that got carried by several news outlets? In what manner is this person a recognized "dissident"? Was he arrested? No. Was he tried? No. Was he jailed? No. Did the government stop him from leaving the country? No. Should the police have investigated him? No, probably not. Does that make him notable? No. Should be have an article about him? No, especially one that appears to have been written by a friend of his after the one he wrote himself was deleted. Can an article still be WP:PROMO even if you don't write it yourself? Yes. Is this article promotional? No, probably not, it avoids all the pitfalls inherent in promotional articles (except for the big one - it's covering a subject who hasn't done or said anything noteworthy). Does not being promotional mean that it should be kept? No, not if the subject isn't notable. Have the majority of the respondents here read the article or the sources? No, it does not appear so from their comments. Then why are they !voting to keep an article about a blatantly non-notable person? I don't know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Do you read Japanese? The incredibly well-sourced article you linked to was created by an IP (something IPs are not allowed do on English Wikipedia), is sourced almost exclusively to Chinese-language sources (not a problem, but you seem to be assuming that the topic having an article on ja.wiki must be noteworthy beyond its having an article on zh.wiki, presumably because it must be based on Japanese sources), and on top of all that ja.wiki has really terrible sourcing standards and should almost never be cited as justification for not deleting an article on en.wiki -- this is one of the few articles I have seen there that have inline citations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: If you're deleting articles about Kardashians, you might recruit me to the dark side. But for now, I'm sticking to the party line that it doesn't matter why he's notable, if it's for a real reason or because reporters are stupid... most famous people it's the second category, though this one may be an exception. The only thing Wikipedia should care about is if we have multiple independent sources about the subject that allow us to write a reliable, balanced and reasonably informative biography. Not whether he ought to be famous. Wnt (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But if matters if he's notable, and there's nothing that I, or any other Eglish-only editor, can see that would show that.
BTW, I'm trying to get out of this morass, which would be much easier if people would quit pinging me. There's no point in doing so, I'm not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to say anything more (obviously) which will convince anyone else who hasn;t already been convince by what I've previously writen. To mix some metaphors, I've really got nothing else up my sleeve, so please set me free! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see a valid rationale given for deletion. Notability is clear -- sources do not have to be in English, and their coverage extends over multiple activities to support a genuinely biographical coverage of his life, though it's a bit sparse at the beginning. I looked over at the article and somebody had badly munged it claiming "WP:NOTBIO"... there certainly is no such policy. Wnt (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Badly munged" is an exaggeration. I messed up some references because all the anchors are in Chinese; normally the bots fix that in an hour or two automatically. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:COATRACK are the essays that summarize my concerns with this article; there's no link for the intersection apparently. However, those are entirely editing problems and not a cause for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You took out 4K of content, and I saw no particular reason why. I don't see what those essays have to do with anything. I see you just made a much smaller deletion where you took out where he went to elementary and middle school and I don't even see a reason for that ... what's the point of randomly destroying biographical detail that somebody came up with for us? In any case, I have seen way too many AfDs accompanied by people butchering the article for no good reason, after which new voters wander in and say "why keep this, there's nothing here".
It is called copy-editing. Mentioning that he once met the Dalai Lama is trivial and unnecessary. This is a discussion for the talk page, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: He organized students from Mainland China to go and see the Dalai Lama and you say that's trivial? And you just go and casually get rid of the work of another editor who was able and willing to read and translate the original Chinese sources, citing only a nonexistent policy because ... because you think your judgment is better than his? Are you kidding me??? What kind of a biography do you think you're commanding and controlling here anyway??? A real short one, that much I know, otherwise ... I'm just screaming. Wnt (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I found some high profile coverage of Tony Chang, in which he is credited for causing a policy statement by Malcolm Turnbull (my edit, Turnbull source) Wnt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm seeing lots of all bold, all italics, all coming across as screaming at the fellow Wikipedia editors on this page. Seems a bit extreme. Seems like vested POVs or something. Unnecessary. Let's all try to be more collegial with each other, thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIS IS SCREAMING!!!
    This is emphasis, and I use it quite deliberately and with careful forethought. If I wanted to scream at you, believe me, you'd know it.
    One of the reasons that online discussion are so prone to flame wars, even decades after Usenet, is that there is no real equivalent for tone of voice (except for emoticons and such, which have a very limited range, and are rather twee to boot), and most people don't write well enough to properly express precisely what the are trying to say - so misapprehensions and misunderstandings arise quite often. My use of various levels of emphasis is intended to, in a small way, imitate how I would say something if I were talking to you on the telephone, making sure that you understand my most salient points by the various rhetorical ways of doing so. Just read what I write as it is written, do not interpret it with your own twist ("He's shouting at me again!"), and all will be abundantly clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before was screaming. Above just comes across as ranting and raving in the village square. All are completely unprofessional, wholly unwarranted, and poorly reflective of the character of the user in this deletion debate. Sagecandor (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also write on here in a manner similar to Beyond My Ken: because written text cannot effectively communicate tone, I bold or italicize the words I'm trying to emphasize in a post: the words where I would be raising my tone of voice if I were speaking the post out loud. Standard Internet convention is that typing in ALL CAPS is equivalent to screaming, while bolding or italicizing words for tonal clarity is not, and I see all of exactly zero evidence that anybody in this discussion has crossed the line at all. You need to dial your sensitivity settings down a few titches if you think otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt:Quoting here: "yes, that's five apostrophes of shouting". Sagecandor (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is no requirement for sources to be in English to establish notability and RFA is a major and significant WP:RS, why is this in dispute? There here are other English language sources besides, that can be found through Google. Seraphim System (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only consideration we should have at this point is if the subject satisfies GNG. We should not ask the question "notable for what?". It is not up to us to decide to decide if someone is "worthy enough" to merit an article. The media makes that decision for us. In this case international media has picked on the article subject as notable compared to thousands of other dissidents. Chinese sourcing is, contrary to some thoughts expressed at this AFD very much permissible to count towards GNG. Personal views towards the subjects relationship with wikipedia have no place at this discussion. He could be Willy Wonka on wheels and get an article if he satisfies GNG. P.S. Our rules have drawbacks. I personally feel that "worthy" article subjects are excluded by the GNG rule, but those are our rules as they stand. Not making our own editorial decision is probably on the whole a better way. Agathoclea (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I think all the editors who say "keep because there is a wikipedia article on him in another language" are wrong. I think that all the editors who say "delete because sources are in another language" are wrong. And I think that the overabundance of comments by the subject of the article, despite his clear conflict of interest, though not a vote, are not appropriate and suggest inappropriate efforts to influence creation of the article at this AfD on his part - he should have stayed out of this discussion completely, and his long discussion of the smallest details suggests he is involved here more than is appropriate. I think Death's suggestion that there may be bad faith was not proper, as he later said he did not have any evidence himself of that. Also, those whose votes are based in part on the Daily Mail are not based on a proper source. I think he does not appear to be notable for anything in particular other than "being a dissident," so the question is whether there is enough appropriate coverage to satisfy GNG. 2604:2000:E016:A700:11A:98F9:63C0:5157 (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I can't read Chinese, I'm not in a position to evaluate whether the sources are reliable ones or not, or whether they're substantively about the subject or not — I'm going to have to leave that determination to the people here who can read Chinese. But I do feel the need to address a couple of misconceptions that seem to be cropping up in the discussion nonetheless.
  1. Firstly, the language that the references happen to be in is not relevant to our notability criteria at all: as long as the references are reliable and substantively about him, we do not care whether they're written in English, French, German, Portuguese, Farsi or Chinese. So long as our article is written in English and somebody on Wikipedia has the ability to read the language if verification is needed, we simply don't care what language the sources are in. It would create an incredible systemic bias against countries that aren't primarily English-speaking if we had such a rule: for instance, if German-language sources were verboten, we would be extremely hard-pressed to actually create an article about almost any German politician besides Angela Merkel; if French-language sources were interdit, we'd have real problems creating or keeping articles about most French parliamentarians and most members of the provincial assembly in Quebec. And on and so forth. So as long as there's somebody on the Wikipedia project who can be turned to if you need a source translation, we don't care if the sources themselves are in English or not.
  2. The fact that an article was previously deleted does not constitute an automatic permanent ban on a new article ever being created at all. It means you can't recreate the same article again, certainly — but a new article that makes a stronger claim of notability, and cites better sourcing, than the first one did can be created and kept. So the fact that an article about Tony Chang was previously deleted at a different title is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete this one too — we have to consider this article on its own merits or lack thereof: is there a valid notability claim here, is there adequate sourcing here, and on and so forth. The fact that an older version was deleted is irrelevant to whether this one should also be deleted or kept, because this is not the same article or the same sourcing.
  3. Those things said, it's also correct that we do not have an automatic rule that notability on one language's Wikipedia automatically constitutes notability on all language Wikipedias. Not all Wikimedia projects define their basic notability standards in the same way, and not all Wikimedia projects have equal quality control mechanisms in place to ensure that their content is actually complying with their standards. It's entirely possible in fact, that a person who has an article on another language's Wikipedia may not actually be notable under that Wikipedia's own notability standards either, and the article just hasn't gotten noticed by any of the responsible editors yet. It's true that the lack of an article on the Wikipedia of the topic's own primary language can point toward a lack of notability if the English article isn't genuinely solid either — but the obverse, presence of an article in another language automatically conferring a free notability pass here too, does not automatically follow from that.
Again, I'm not properly equipped to evaluate notability or lack thereof in this instance. But for all of the above reasons, this has to be evaluated strictly on its own merits, and not on irrelevancies like whether an article exists in another language or not, whether the sources are in English or not, or whether an earlier version got deleted or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything you said above. However, I should note that per WP:AGF it is our practice to assume that the editor(s) who read the Chinese sources translated them correctly, until evidence emerges to the contrary. So far as I know, no one (yes, that's five apostrophes of shouting) has actually come forward and said that they read one of the Chinese sources and it doesn't say what the article says it said. (This would, alas, not be too uncommon in Wikipedia articles, and it wouldn't by itself mean a deletion was in order, but the lack of even an allegation makes the point pretty clear) The direct reason for my Keep vote, technically speaking, is the lack of a deletion rationale at all -- it is not usual practice for someone to AfD an article and then we all look and think what could possibly be wrong with it. It is the deletionist's burden to pull up a valid AfD criterion and prove it. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Attempt to verify sources on Chinese leads to pages like that. I do not see anything about Tony Chang. This may be a hoax. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: someone will correct me if I am wrong, but ny understanding is that Zhang Shuren and Tony Chang are the same person. But I can't find sources to confirm this so the article should probably be created under the name that is used by WP:RS. If they all use different names, this could be a real problem for establishing notability. Seraphim System (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this is the same person? Here is English source about Zhang Suren. Here is another English source about Tony Chang. Hence they are different persons according to English sources. All Chinese language sources on this page tell about Zhang Shuren. Is not this page a hoax? My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Photos look like the same person [10] both in Australia. It could be a courtesy name―probably is, but if that is what most of the WP:RS use it would be better to use that name for the article.Seraphim System (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: @Seraphim System: As the author of the article, I want to declare that it is the same person, just different translation. "Zhang Shuren" is his Chinese name "张树人"(Simplified Chinese)/"張樹人"(Traditional Chinese) in Pinyin, and "Anthony Chang"/"Tony Chang" is his official English name. His surname "张"(Simplified Chinese)/"張"(Traditional Chinese) in his official name is translated to "Chang" according to Wade–Giles, which can also be translated to "Zhang" according to Pinyin. Some media like RFA did not know about his English name, so they translate his name in Pinyin by default, as that translation is popular in China, let alone Google Translate. There are also some media know his English name, like VOA. In this report in VOA, which is a Chinese report based on the ABC report and Four Corners, it translated in "Anthony Chang", as "张树人(Anthony Chang)" can be found in that page. The VOA report I said might be used as an evidence.--Richard Yee (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but a claim by a wikipedian does not worth much. Which source tells this particular "Tony Chang" is the same person as "Zhang Shuren"? I can not tell anything by looking at photos. If we have such difficulties even to establish this is the same person, this is strong argument in favor of deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This source (VOA) as Richard just said. "在澳大利亚生活在恐惧中的一个例子是中国留学生张树人(Anthony Chang)。" "Tony Chang"[11]="Anthony Chang"[12]. Another source (Liberty Times): "流亡澳洲的中國難民張樹人，欲持澳洲難民旅行證申請入台，遭台灣相關單位拒絕。（張樹人提供）" with a picture of my travel document on top, shows my name English official name is "Anthony She-jen Chang". Although I said I was leaving this discussion, but that seems an important clarification. As can be seen, Google translates "张树人" to "Zhang Shuren", and also translates "張樹人" in to "Zhang Shuren" as well. (just a clarification, not intend to bring arguments, sorry about that)--Shujen Chang (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim System Tony Chang himself is actually commenting here and has confirmed that "Zhang Shuren" is his Chinese name. So they would appear to be RS references for the same person. I think there is nothing wrong with using the English name for the Wikipedia English articles, and the Chinese name for the China wikipedia articles (though a note on each to indicate this would he helpful to prevent the confusing). In any case, the page shouldn't be deleted just because the person the page about has a Chinese name, as well as an English one, it's a very common thing to do for Chinese people living in the west (well in Australia at least). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Tony Chang himself" is not an RS, but I am very much willing to AGF. Probably this is not a hoax. OK. So, we do not have any English language source telling literally this: "Tony Chang, also known as Zhang Shuren" if I understand correctly ? My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia we should be cautious about trusting the person himself - when appearing as a Wikipedia account only - because someone could be playing a political game or even a troll game where they pretend to be someone, talk in character for a while, then get increasingly loopy with their demands once they get confident we're fooled. Normally, the way I tell an article subject to inform us is to put out the information on his official website. In this case, the official website our article lists is shurenchang.name ... which, of course, begs the question. However, that blog links to his twitter account https://mobile.twitter.com/Shujenchang which identifies him as Tony Chang, with thousands of followers and comments. I'm not a big fan of Twitter, so I'm not sure whether that account is "verified by Twitter" or not - I know there's some way to do it. (By contrast, Wikipedia does not verify identity in any particularly convincing way - the things they usually talk about doing when it comes up in conversation are trivially faked. I don't think we have the stomach for it or any real need to do what it would take to do it right.) If Chang went through the Twitter verification process it would help make the outlet more solidly official, but I don't think that's actually necessary - by this point Chang is well known in the news, and practically speaking I think that if there were some fake blogger in China pretending to be him that we would expect to find news about that. Wnt (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break[edit]

  • Keep. I think the responses by native speakers above answered my WP:Verification concerns. The person seem to be notable simply per WP:GNG, i.e. "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" ("Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") The multiple sources, such as Radio Free Asia, do qualify as RS. Yes, the page is written as if someone wanted to prove that he was oppressed to receive a refugee status ("he was also oppressed directly by the Diplomatic Missions of China in Australia" and so on). However, this is not a valid reason for deletion, but something to be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some people above are clearly failing to assume good faith. The claim my desire to delete this article is based on any animus, let alone that it represents a change of opinion because of some animus, is a clear failure to assume good faith. I think this article should be deleted because it is a clear case of someone who has done nothing of note, who has had passing trivial coverage about other things, having an article for no clearly defined reason. Wikipedia is not news, and just because someone's situation is used to illustrate a larger point in a news account does not mean we need an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One issue ignored above is interviews with a person are not independent, reliable 3rd party sources that add to notability so "Tony Cheng talks with 4 corners" is not a source that adds towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I for one certainly AGF for your nomination, but your description of the the subject doing "nothing of note ... having an article for no clearly defined reason" does not seem accurate to me. The subject appears notable for being a dissident and an activist, and has received international press coverage as such in multiple languages. This is not a WP:1E or WP:NOTNEWS situation, AFAICT. I believe you put forward the AfD in good faith, but in error.
As far as the interviews are concerned, there are enough sources that are not primarily interviews that I don't see any risk to GNG requirements. I would also point out a certain amount of cognitive dissonance some of us experience at the blanket statement that interviews do not "add to notability". Obviously a subject's assertion in an interview that they are notable doesn't contribute to notability, and neither does a person being interviewed as a pundit contribute to the notability of the person. But when people are selected to speak about themselves in an interview because they are considered a notable and interesting interview subject by a national broadcaster: some of us have a feeling that should possibly "add to notability". Heresy, I know. Newimpartial (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, with Newimpartial - while an interview is not the same as expert commentary on someone's person to establish them as notable - Four Corners is the top most current affairs program in Australia, if they chose Tony Chang to speak to about this topic, it's because they decided he was well regarded and chose him to provide commentary, and would have been vetted by their editorial team. It's certainly no slight to be interviewed by Four Corners about a topic!. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources in Chinese should not be discounted because of their language, but because they are political sources. Radio Free Asia and Voice of America are both US government funded political networks which we can assume have bias against the Chinese government. Taiwanese newspapers which have political slants toward independence. Voice of Tibet- we can assume they are biased against China. So- it's a bunch of unreliable political organizations writing about someone with the same views as them. And being interviewed for being a Chinese dissident political refugee does not make you individually notable. He is being interviewed because of what he is, not because he is a notable example of that. Articles about him are only like those that appear in most magazines (see the Readers Digest) - articles about a subject that use an individual to personalize the story. It does not mean the subject is notable. And as the article grows it is just becoming more and more promotional. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwanese newspapers are inherently biased about Chinese dissidents because they are Taiwanese? American funded media (PBS?) are inherently biased because they are unsympathetic to the Chinese government? These media outlets are "unreliable political organizations"? I can't imagine what you make of the BBC or the New York times. You should take this up on WP:RSN.
If a variety of news outlets all interview someone about their individual experience (in this case, being a dissident activist) that makes their experience notable. At some point - long before this article was written, in this case - it stops being WP:1E. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Further up, you stated that no one was making the arguments that the sources are problematic because they are sympathetic to the subject (and so are only publicizing him because of their sympathetic bias), and so could not be used as sources for a BLP in accordance with the NPOV policy. I don't know if that is true, since I still have not read the massive back-and-forth that took place before I got here, but above User:El cid, el campeador made essentially this exact argument (more eloquently than I was able to do) and you just dismissed it based on the sources supposedly meeting some nebulous concept of "reliability". I have never seen you post on RSN, but I have been on there quite a lot, and almost all the time when someone comes there with a claim like yours, they are asked to explain the context. Context matters. If the only "reliable sources" we have on a presumably controversial figure are sympathetic to his cause then we can't use them to present the opposing view, and BLP means we can't effectively balance it (within a standalone article) with sources that aren't specifically about the subject. You apparently do not understand this because you are, in effect, a new user. The same is true of the creator of the article. New users have a right to edit the project, and even to comment on AFDs, but when they show a clear ignorance of the relevant policies, their arguments that hinge on said misunderstandings will usually be ignored by closers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the date stamps, Hijiri. The argument that I said nobody had made (at a certain point in time) has since been made by El Cid, and I then responded to that. I am not ignorant of the NPOV policy, but I am disputing that the sources referred to are in fact biased in favor of sympathy with the subject of the article, as should be clear from the (somewhat snarky) tone of my entire post to which you refer. I am not claiming to be a highly experienced user, but I always examine the AFN boards when issues arise; also, I am quite confident that I have read more AfD discussions over the last six months than you have, Hiriji - as well as the relevant notability criteria, and quite a few of of the RfCs over the last couple of years that relate to AfD issues - and so let's discuss the matter on its merits, rather than calling one another "n3wb".
To have a valid AfD argument of the kind you are suggesting, someone would have to show that there isn't any coverage of the subject in any RS that is un-tainted by an exaggerated sympathetic bias, and part of that argument would have to be a demonstration that the ABS and the SMH, for example, are in fact deferring to an WP:UNDUE sympathetic bias. I have yet to see such evidence submitted by anybody; it has been an "original" argument. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Please read my comments before responding. I was well aware that the comment I was referring to was made after you made that claim. But my point was that you had basically just dismissed that argument based on your own misreading of the policy, so I have no reason to assume that when you said no one had made that argument, you meant "no one that counts" because you were ignoring the comments that you had similarly dismissed. I'll believe you if you say that this isn't the case, but it's not unreasonable to ask the question. Anyway, so far the only sources I can see are those sympathetic to the subject (Beijing is not likely to mention him in state media, to be fair, but western sources sympathetic to it might). GNG is not about reaching a certain numerical threshold of so-called "reliable sources" (based on the bogus assumption that any source is objectively "reliable" without regard to context). It is about having enough sources that an article can be written that does not violate any of our core content policies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I said, Hijiri, was "read the timestamps". Which is what I meant, and it is unreasonable to ask a question which was already implicitly answered in the timestamps. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri 88 Wikipedia articles are supposed to show a balanced view, and reflect both sides of an argument WP:Bal In this case, the articles support the view that he is a genuine dissident, and some of them have a political view (as most sources do). To achieve WP:BAL we would not *remove* those articles, we would include articles from an opposing viewpoint, to reflect both viewpoints.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: Your comment implies you think that the encyclopedia on the whole is supposed to be balanced, but that individual articles do not need to be balanced. This is incorrect. All of our articles need to be appropriately balanced. We don't have some articles presenting only the point of view of dissidents like Chang and other articles presenting only the point of view of the Chinese government. If the only sources that cover a particular subject are those with a particular bias toward that subject, and we can't balance it out without engaging in BLP-violating original research and coatracking (say, filling our Tony Chang article with information from Beijing-sympathetic sources that don't mention him), then the subject cannot have a standalone Wikipedia article.
According to wikipedia policy, if there is some percieved bias, it can be noted, but if it is sourced, it should *not* be removed, instead the text should indicate the bias (if there is any). Please see WP:NPOV. "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." If there was a negative communist viewpoint on Mr Chang, I think that certainly should be included if someone can find something. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • People are too busy arguing about some philosophical WP policy rather than looking at the mess the article actually is. Comparing PBS to Voice of Asia is not even worth responding to. If this would have been tagged for CSD it would be gone, but instead we have the article's subject and like-minded people with the same bias in favor of dissidents crusading for its inclusion, being the same people who created the article (noted by the fact that the grammar of the article is not up to WP standards or otherwise understandable, in addition to using it's on the Chinese wiki as a reason), and other people not bothering to look at the sources ("it's Chinese, ergo it must be ok but I won't check because that would require googling what these sources are"). I don't even CARE about this subject but the complete disregard for common sense and general notability guidelines is astonishing. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you are conveniently leaving out, El Cid, is that you did place a PROD tag, which I removed because it did not apply (the article asserts notability) and because nomination was clearly controversial (which should be self-evident by now). I have looked at many available sources, cited in the article or not, and am confident that Deutsche Welle, Thai newspapers, Voice of Tibet and the ABC are not so terribly confused by their "bias in favor of dissidents", and have in fact granted appropriate Notability to the subject. The fact that three or four editors or admins will not accept this finding, and appeal to increasingly odd "common sense" to back their WP:WORLDVIEW should probably be more surprising to me than it actually is, and mostly leaves me sad. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just looking at the article. If the subject is notable at all, he is notable for publicizing himself, and it seems clear he wishes to use WP as another publicity vehicle. I certainly have the greatest possible sympathy for what I understand is his political POV, but the basic rule is is NOT ADVOCACY. The content is advocacy, and the entire purpose is advocacy, and I do not think it would be possible to write an article that is anything else. In addition, the impression I have from the discussion above is that the subject and his friends have been writing all versions of the the article. This is very strongly discouraged, and ought to be outright prohibited. I regard this as an exceptionally aggravated case, considering the great effort that seems to have been put into it. This has gone on too far, and needs to be put a stop to. I suggest salting, under all forms of the name. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find this comment a bit odd. He didn't promote himself by being chosen to be interviewed by Four Corners. He didn't arrange articles in Deuech Weller, SMH, etc. He also didn't arrange to promote himself by having his family harrassed by the Chinese Police for his political stance. These are all things that happened to him, not things he arranged. And he certainly didn't write this article himself. In addition, I've added to this article, and I certainly don't know him.. I just saw the article here on the AFD list.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever wrote it, this page is written as an advertisement of a refugee seeker: he "was almost put in the youth detention center", "his family was contacted the Communist Party of China" (that sounds really ridiculous), "he was also oppressed directly by the Diplomatic Missions of China in Australia", and so on. His "political views" on the page are trivia, they are not of interest or value for anyone, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the article wording could definitely be changed, but the article *shouldn't be deleted*. On the whole, this individual is of interest, and notable for what he has done. If he wasn't the media wouldn't be mentioning him or interviewing him. Australian Wikipedia users are presently very interested in Chinese dissidents based in their country, in particualr ones that have a profile and are interviewed and reported on in the media. Particularly when he has been reported on by so much RS, including The Daily Mail, The Canberra Times,Deutsche Welle,The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and a feature interview with Four Corners, as well as many others. As has been said before, there are articles with half the level of referenced sources that are on Wikipedia. The fact this article is so well referenced and yet people are *still* trying to delete it is a bit bizarre. Not to mention there is both Japanese wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia pages for him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG said: "the entire purpose is advocacy, and I do not think it would be possible to write an article that is anything else". If he is right, the page should be deleted. But is it really the case? This is a matter of opinion. In my view, that promotional bias would be easy to fix by removing a few paragraphs and rephrasing some others. Hence keeping my "keep" vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning issues of bias: Some people are making valid complaints here for the article talk page; they are, however, not AfD arguments. As Deathlibrarian has explained above, the cure for bias is not taking out sources on the side you don't like. And contrary to what some people above just argued, it is diseased to argue that if Chinese state media refuses to cover a subject then Wikipedia has to not cover it also, because it would be "imbalanced" to leave out their point of view. No ... just no. Now while it ought to be irrelevant to say this at all, I just want to clear the air and say that yes, I recognize that the cause of Tibetan independence is ridiculous, has been made totally impossible by mass migration, is pushed purely as a matter of Western propaganda, and has only produced a race riot in Urumqi so far as I know; and yes, I realize that a sworn statement by a Chinese asylum seeker is subject to strong pressures to exaggerate; and yes, I am pretty confident that posed with the Tiananmen Square situation (complete with an ornamental 50-caliber machine gun) the U.S. government would have acted pretty much the same way, possibly with the same casualties. None of that stopped me from voting Keep. Because on Wikipedia it's not what you think that matters, it's what sources you find and bring to the article. Now it may be that the Chinese government has censored its own point of view. Boo-hoo! As if we discuss any of the other articles the Chinese press has never dared to write, that would not be so sympathetic to it! If you find us an article in Xinhuanet or something, we'll be more than happy to see balance in this article. One may in fact be coming, since Malcolm Turnbull made a statement to them that referenced the report about Tony Chang. That is your recourse. Tearing down the encyclopedia because you don't like what people were able to cobble together -- that's not an option. Wnt (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wnt: But what sources have you found and brought to the article? At present, the article states as a matter of fact that the Chinese government has its official policy to eliminate the Tibetan language, which is not what the much better-sourced Standard Tibetan#Contemporary usage says; in fact the Chinese government's policy towards certain minority languages, including Tibetan, seems to be far more progressive and accommodating than that of most western countries toward their indigenous minority languages (see for example pp. 23-24 of this report from the government of Chang's host country). If you acknowledge that the cause of Tibetan independence is ridiculous [... and ...] is pushed purely as a matter of Western propaganda, then how do you propose we fix this article that states that that is not the case purely because one anti-Beijing activist claimed as much in an interview published by a "Western propaganda" outlet? It's a BLP, so we can't nuance these points with sources that are not about Tony Chang (as we could, for instance, in an article on Opposition to the Chinese government from overseas Chinese or some such hypothetical merge location) or with self-published sources by Tibetan scholars with blogs. This is a classic case of BLP not allowing us to write an article that accords with our other policies, because we simply don't have enough third-party reliable sources covering all the core facets of the topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like very minor editing to me. "Chang said that the Chinese government is...". Look for other articles to link to. But if you want to contradict him, you need a source that does it. Our main point is to explain what he's saying, and what sourced reactions we can find to it -- not to decide whether he is Right or Wrong in an absolute sense. We're not the ones making the arguments, nor the ones evaluating them; it is up to sources to do that. Wnt (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources don't do that, not because he is not wrong (he is) but because the only sources covering the subject are either (a) self-published, (b) primary sources published by sympathetic/biased entities, or (c) secondary sources published by sympathetic/biased entities. Including information from, for example, the above-linked sources by Postiglione et al or AIATSIS to balance out his claims would be coatracking, and simply adding "Chang said that..." would not solve the problem, since we still don't have any evidence that the subject is notable enough to have his opinion on Beijing's language policy cited on Wikipedia. Again, thousands of people have met the Dalai Lama -- they should not all have Wikipedia articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri 88... Hijiri san, are you saying Four Corners, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Sydney Morning Herald and Deutch Weller are all biased sources, and can't be used as RS? Because if they are, you're going to have to be removing a *lot* of Australian articles. Seriously, the ABC is Govt and is the most reputable Broadcaster in Australia, the SMH is probably the top two reputable Newspapers in Australia, and I would say Four Corners (TV series) is one of the longest running and reputable current affairs programs *in the world*.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't challenge an anti-Beijing activist on ridiculous claims like "the Chinese government have as a policy goal the exterminatiom of Tibetan language and culture", then it doesn't matter if they're politically biased against a geopolitical rival of Australia and its allies, or they just don't want to point this stuff out because nuance wouldn't sell as many papers and/or might cause viewers to change the channel. They might be generally reliable, but they don't grant notability to the subject under discussion. Again, I must ask you to stop setting up strawmen like "you are claiming such-and-such source doesn't meet the 'reliability' threshold", when I am talking about whether enough sources exist for us to build an article that satisfies all of our policies. And I shouldn't even have to do that, since the article was re-created in violation of a previous consensus, by a newly-created near-SPA whose operator should probably be TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: This article isn't about the Chinese government; it's about Chang. He has been featured prominently in a number of newsworthy events going back years, and the readers of those events run into something and think Who the heck is Tony Chang? And Wikipedia is here to answer that whenever some independent secondary sources exist and editors have proved willing to find them and explain them in an article. Saying "all the secondary sources are biased" is not a valid argument - it won't get you anywhere. I mean, intellectual property links to a bunch of references by corporations and lawyers whose bread is buttered by that absurd and peculiar institution; the Truth of course is that it should be explained as a phenomenon comparable to indentured servitude and slavery and those who support it should be denounced as censors and villains. But if I go edit that article that way, I doubt I will get very far, because this isn't an encyclopedia of what I think, but an encyclopedia that collects and navigates between the available sources. It is not uncommon that most if not all of them are biased, but how would we judge that? Only by eternal mindless edit-warring and deleting each others' work. That is not the way.
Also note that self-published sources by an article subject may be used to source information about what the subject says. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of wasting my time here. I've already essentially replied to your comment when DL said the same thing above (Your comment implies you think that the encyclopedia on the whole is supposed to be balanced, but that individual articles do not need to be balanced...). My comment about BLPSPS was about how, if any pro-Beijing scholars/lobbyists have responded specifically to Chang (something that one would expect if he was really "featured prominently in a number of newsworthy events"), then we couldn't cite them unless they went through some specific publishing process; the fact that we are not disallowed from citing Chang's self-published statements as long as they are not unduly self-serving is completely unrelated to my comment. Anyways, I'd rather not comment here again; if you want to have the last word you can, but please refrain from pinging me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break 2[edit]

  • Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and reads like a tribute page. The subject does not appear to be notable for anything just yet. "Chang with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales at Wikimania in 2014" photo is cute, but does not help with notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Prime Minister of Australia was a month ago. Sagecandor (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that much has changed since the deletion a year ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Shang. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just the sources and the text of the article. :) Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and the fact that the new article was created by a three-day old account apparently operated by an associate of the subject, who was very likely aware that he was overruling a previous community discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A community decision which was erroneously influenced by a chinese wikipedia decision and which does not reflect the current state of the sources. I think that about covers it. :) Newimpartial (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does "erroneously influenced" mean? You and others are now saying that the fact that there was no specific consensus to delete (in the short term) in the most recent zh.wiki AFD means that the article as it stands now should not be deleted on English Wikipedia, so clearly you don't think that any influence from foreign-language wikis is inappropriate (even though foreign language wikis have their own inclusion guidelines, and so probably should just be ignored as much as possible). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop straw-manning me. My position is - and has always been - that the en.wiki decision should not be influenced by the decisions in any other language wikipedia. The retention of the article in the most recent zh.wiki process simply underlines for me how foolish it was that the previous en.wiki AfD was influenced by the previous zh.wiki deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not straw-manning. You're the one who replied to my first comment with "AFD is NOTCLEANUP" (a straw-man argument), and you also said (again in your first response to me, though not in direct reply to anything I had said) that the article has since been restored [on zh.wiki] and survived AfD there, so it's not straw-manning to say you are allowing zh.wiki to influence this discussion. It doesn't matter if some of the "deletes" in the previous AFD on en.wiki were influenced by zh.wiki. The result was unanimous support for deletion, so you would need to demonstrate that all of them were motivated exclusively by zh.wiki deletion. It's simply not the place of an SPA to come along a year later and unilaterally overrule said unanimous consensus. (Note that I'm being ideologically consistent here: I said the same thing two weeks ago in an entirely unrelated discussion. If you want to overrule a consensus discussion, you need a new consensus: you can't just dismiss the previous consensus as being invalid because one or two expressed an opinion that wasn't based in a strict interpretation of policy. And that's you; it goes doubly for RichardYee, who didn't even have an account until three days before writing the article.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: RY wouldn't be allowed assume that the consensus was invalidated even if all six of the !voters in the previous AFD had explicitly referred to Chinese Wikipedia (since he doesn't know how said users' opinions would have changed if there had never been an article on zh.wiki), but as it actually happened only one of the six referred to zh.wiki, so ... well, if you want to talk about straw-manning, I would say putting the words 'Deletem The corresponding zh.wiki article was deleted, and we should follow suit in the mouths of five commenters fits the bill. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, what part of "you can create a new article on a prevously AfD (but unsalted) topic, as long as it differs substantially from the previous article" do you not understand?
AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP is not a straw-man argument, since many initial responses were to the tone or sourcing of the article rather than the notability of the source. My argument has always been that if some of the deletes in the previous en.wiki AfD were influenced by the (subsequently reversed) zh.wiki AfD (and you admit that at least one was), then that casts doubt on the previous en.wiki AfD, at least as a precedent for the new AfD. I certainly do not have to demonstrate that each and all of the !voters were influenced; I am only arguing that the mistaken influence could have influenced the result (and just because others don't mention it doesn't mean that it didn't influence others, since it was mentioned). Finally, I have never suggested that the recent zh.wiki means that we should have the same result here; that is a complete straw-man when applied to my posts.
Nobody is "overruling" a "consensus"; we are having an AfD discussion, and if the consensus here is that the subject is notable and that the sources of the new article are reasonable, then that (and only that) would supercede the previous decision, as it is supposed to do. Newimpartial (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a bit of trouble finding that quotation. Could you tell me where you got it? Obviously you didn't copy-paste the exact words of a frequently-cited policy or guideline page, since no such page would include misspellings like "a prevously AfD (but unsalted) topic". Did you say something like that to me further up the page? Should I recognize it? I imagine that, more importantly than "differ[ing] substantially from the previous article", any new article should adequately address the concerns that led to the previous article's deletion, but given that the same arguments are being made here, that clearly wasn't done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement in quotation marks above was a paraphrase; I should probably have used italics, or something.
And one important dynamic of the discussion here is whether or not the article addressed adequately the concerns that led to deletion (except the deletion at zh.wiki, which was well-addressed :) ). It was certainly in-scope for the article to be brought back with new sources and new content (as it was); it would also be in-scope for it to be deleted again, if the sources and content are insufficient to establish notability, sourcing, or conformity to WP:NOT, which is what this discussion is to determine. Please don't beg the question. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A paraphrase from what/where, though? As I said above, I don't agree to the content of your paraphrase. I don't think a previous AFD should only be overruled just because the content of the new article differs from the old one -- the specific problems that led to the delete consensus should be addressed. I suspect most other editors would agree with me on this point. So I want you to tell me which part of what policy/guideline you were paraphrasing -- I think your paraphrase may have glossed over this point. You seem to expect me to have already read whatever it is you are paraphrasing. However, not only have I no memory of having read it, but it seems completely alien to my understanding of how CONSENSUS works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the restrictions on speedy deletion criterion G4, which specifies the criterion as follows: "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[2] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". There isn't any other criterion or guideline that prevents creation of a new page with new sourcing on a topic that was previously deleted by AfD, so my paraphrase about what is allowed rests on WP's definition of what is not allowed, which is recreation of identical (or essentially identical) copies. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the new article has to be identical in substance to the deleted old one to qualify for a G4 speedy; it doesn't necessarily have to be exactly identical in form. That is, that criterion can't be avoided by a new article that makes the same weak notability claim and cites the same weak quality of sourcing, but merely rearranges it or retitles it so that the differences are strictly in structure or wording or page name — but it is precluded if the new article makes a new claim of notability, or cites new evidence of better sourceability, that wasn't present in the prior version. I haven't carefully evaluated which side of that line this particular case falls on, but G4 isn't necessarily precluded just because the new article isn't a strictly verbatim repost of the old one. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree, Bearcat. The new article - whatever its flaws - uses entirely new media sources and makes a stronger and clearer claim to notability than the deleted article. I read the 2011 discussion about G4, and understand that non-identical articles may be speedied by some admins when they do not address the concerns of the previous AfD (and that such articles are likely to be deleted at AfD if not speedied). In this case, there was at least a good faith attempt to address the concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that G4 does not technically apply because the article is not (as far as you know, having apparently never seen the previously deleted version) identical to the previously deleted version (even though all the "reason[s] for deletion" still apply) is a really weak "keep" rationale. Pointing out that this is a recreation of a deleted page in an attempt to overrule a previous community consensus, by a new account with a clear conflict of interest, is a perfectly acceptable deletion rationale, and your attempt to undermine me by claiming it is not is not appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is all totally irrelevant. The article is not up for speedy deletion and I know that I personally added some new references about Tony Chang that came out last month, long after any predecessor was deleted! My work is not a recreation of some deleted article; nor is any version of the article containing it, so you can all quit arguing about this issue now. Wnt (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't reply to messages directed at other users as though they were directed at you. Just because my comment might be irrelevant to anything you have written, doesn't change the fact that Newimpartial has been arguing that the article should not be deleted because one of the speedy deletion criteria doesn't technically apply (even though it very nearly does, and that fact is a valid deletion argument). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody is allowed to reply to any comment in an AFD discussion. If you want to have a private conversation with one user and only one user, you have to do that in private communication — if your comment is posted in a public discussion, anybody is allowed to reply to it if they have something to say about it. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Regardless of where a comment was posted, we are not allowed jump in and respond as though it were directed at us. I told NI to stop citing irrelevant policies, and Wnt showed up all of a sudden and responded as though I were telling him to stop citing irrelevant policies. Either he didn't actually read the string of comments to which I was responding, or he deliberately pretended not to have read them in order to undermine me (and the other editors who agree with me) so that the page can be kept. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, I asked about the relationship between this article and the previous one, and was told that it was a new creation, in terms of text and sources - did you not actually read the discussion above?
Also, you claim that "all the reason[s] for deletion" given in the previous discussion still apply, even though (i) one of the previous reasons for deletion, offered in the previous AfD, was the zh.wiki deletion, which has since been overturned; (ii) another of the reasons offered in the previous deletion was that notability was not established by the sources given, but this article includes new sources (including several that were not yet published at the time of the previous deletion discussion); and (iii) the previous text was alleged not to have made a credible claim for Notability, which the current one certainly does. So this is not a situation when "all the reason[s] for deletion" still apply.
The point of my citing the CSD criteria was to show that there is no policy support for your contention that the new article is "an attempt to overrule a previous community consensus" and therefore somehow invalid. New articles are written on (unsalted) subjects all the time that have gone to AfD, and any time the Notability of the topic has increased, the sources are better or the article is substantially different, the issue is to be covered on its merits, and not through blind reference to the previous AfD. If there is some policy support relating to your position besides the CSD criteria, Hijiri, I would very much like to see it.Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STOP making up what are at best loose paraphrases, putting them in quotation marks, and throwing them at me as though I am supposed to recognize them. I never said "all the reason[s] for deletion" in this discussion (I searched for "all the re" and nothing came up but "all the references" and your "quotation" above), and have no idea what you are referring to. If I did say something like that several days ago, I am sure it made sense in context, but you appear to be deliberately twisting my words and taking them out of context, and I'm not going to bother defending myself against strawman arguments. As for your first paragraph -- yes; maybe that is why it hasn't already been speedied. But neither you nor I can verify that, since neither of us has read the previous article. Your trying to rebut my argument by making it say something it didn't say (that the current article is the same as the one that was deleted) is not helping your situation, and when combined with the remarks of one or two other "keep" !voters really paints your side of this discussion in a poor light. Whether or not the article is deleted, you really need to clean up your act and stop making these strawman arguments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, try searching for 'all the "reason[s]'. I'll wait.
I hope you see that I had to move the quotation marks for the sense of my own post. Your timestamp was 22:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC), which is not "several days ago", and I am not twisting your words, as you can see when you find what you wrote. (!)
You suggested that I didn't know that the new article is different from the one that is speedied. I replied that I do know, because I asked the question and was told (by those who can tell) that the text and sourcing are different. I did not say that you said that it was the same - please stop with your endless strawmanning of my position, coupled with your false allegations that I have employed a strawman argument here (which I never did). Are we done now? Newimpartial (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for using my actual words in the quotation marks this time. And yes, you were misrepresenting what I said. All the reasons do still apply, as "it has been deleted on zh.wiki" was not given as a reason for deletion. It was an off-hand remark by one of the multiple editors who commented in favour of deletion. You apparently don't know what a "straw man" is, and I am not going to try to explain it to you. I'm tired of this back-and-forth, and it's now clear that you and a couple of other "keep" !voters have been deliberately engaging in it in an attempt to get this AFD closed as "no consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did use your words before; I only moved the quotation mark, for reasons I think are obvious.
The zh.wiki comment wasn't an "off-hand remark", it was part of the nominator's rationale last time around. And I like how you claim that "all the reasons apply", and then only address one of the three reasons that I argue no longer applies. Nicely evaded, and I appreciate your ad hominem comment even more. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "anybody can respond to any comment whether it was specifically addressed to them or not" is how Wikipedia works — and you're going to be running the very real risk of getting a temporary editblock for violating Wikipedia's principles of collaboration if you don't stop that line of attack immediately. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No If I say "Stop doing that thing that you are doing" to one user, you are not allowed jump in and say "I'm not doing that!" when I was not addressing you; I was addressing someone else. That is completely ridiculous, and virtually no one I have worked with in my twelve years of Wikipedia-editing has done this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that no, that's not what happened. At no point did Wnt ever imply that they thought you had been addressing them — what they said was that they had added new content to the article which proved that it couldn't be the same article as the deleted prior version, but there's a big difference between that and what you think you saw. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've read the available English-language sourcing, and I've read the arguments on both sides here: I do not intend to get into a back and forth with anyone because that will simply make the AfD more difficult for the closer to deal with. Having reviewed the sourcing, I do not see coverage to the level that we would expect to have an article about a living person. The coverage in the Australian press lies somewhere on the spectrum between human interest coverage and investigative reporting, but more on the spectrum towards human interest. The individual from what I can tell is simply being used as an example to make a larger point. The coverage while it might use his name is thus actually about the CPC's general techniques in dealing with dissidents, using Mr. Chang as a lede to the broader topic. I do not consider this to be coverage of him, but rather coverage of Chinese policy.
    his is a common technique in English-speaking press in a way to put a human face on a broader problem that is complex. While it might make him more well-known than other people who have been affected by actions of the CPC, it does not make him anymore notable than a profile of a the Afghan girl's robotic team that was kept out of the States because of the travel ban makes the team notable. Coverage of him is coverage of a larger story, and is not enough to make him notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, China has a terrible human rights record. That is what makes individual activists notable. Yes, the USA under Trump is quickly moving in the same direction. That is what makes these Afghan girls notable. However, after looking at the sources, it appears that none of the girls is notable individually. As a team - who knows, maybe. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The third point in WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply here. He has been covered in regards to a larger news story, but the coverage is not in fact about him but about the CPC and the PRC. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG tells: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So, it should not be all about him, and there are multiple RS with "significant coverage". The sources are mostly dated 2014-2016. Not exactly the news. I think he passes by these criteria. My very best wishes (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is notability here. Based only on English language resources there is evidence of notability here, particularly in sources such as http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1050150.shtml (not currently in article?). Whether the notability lies in this particular biography or needs to be recast as 2017 Sino-Australian soft power controversy (or similar), is something I'm less clear on. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to keep based partly on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2832857/Chinese-students-BANNED-Brisbane-s-CBD-staged-pro-democracy-protest-outside-Chinese-president-s-hotel-ahead-G20.html Which gives us multi-years in multi-countries for coverage of this person. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stuartyeates, like I said above, I don't intend to get into a back and forth, and this will likely be my last comment on this AfD, but I did want to point out that Wikipedia does not accept the Daily Mail as a source after a widely attended and publicized RfC that made international headlinss. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ummm.... this is embarrassing. I do support keeping the article, but in all fairness I have to admit that the article you list above is not actually relevant. There are several secondary sources that kind of make it sound like it might be about Chang. I value primary sources highly, so I added a direct link to the translation of the press conference at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the article. The actual question was about other allegations that don't seem related to Chang at all. I mean, one full segment of the news series was mostly about Chang, and the Ministry slammed the entire series, so I think it is relevant to keep in the article as a response; but it doesn't increase Chang's notability above being featured in the news series itself. You are, of course, welcome to change your vote anyway. ;) Wnt (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - The subject may have technically passed the notability test, but the article is absolutely a terrible piece of coatrack article. In the article there's not much about Tony Chang himself; it's just mainly about... the Tony Chang's political struggle against China. The "What Wikipedia is not" policy would certainly not accept this kind of political advocacy on Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't neutrality between Tony Chang and Chinese government really an issue for WP:SOFIXIT? Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect titles to guidelines that are effectively behavioral and attached to AGF and IAR do not trump valid deletion reasons under a core content policy that is incorporated as an equal part of the notability guideline to GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that WP:NOT is a key content guideline and a valid deletion reason. I find, however, that it was only raised quite late in this discussion and that there is nothing WP:UNDUE about the article's treatment of "Tony Chang's political struggle against China" that could not be corrected with appropriate editing. It is precisely Chang's political struggle that makes him notable, and there is nothing about that fact that makes the article inherently unencyclopaedic. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a valid reason to prefer deletion regardless of when it is raised. I expressed the same concerns just using a different analysis: the coverage that exists is about general political tensions involving the PRC, and Chang has been essentially used as a prop for the rest of the story in all the sourcing. I like STSC'a reasoning points out the very practical impacts of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself appears as a political advocacy, therefore it should be deleted under "Reasons for deletion no.14". STSC (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't quite understand this claim. What is the article supposed to be advocating? Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read for yourself the "Political views" section. STSC (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about some small fraction of the article, which lists (sourced) political opinions of the dissident in question. The current version doesn't look like a WP:COATRACK for those views nor does it advocate them IMO. It could, of course, be better-edited. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced?...by Voice of Tibet, Voice of America, Liberty Times, NTDT, Radio Free Asia, Epoch Times, Apple Daily, etc. Such a heavily biased article should be deleted at first sight under the WP:NPOV policy. The underlying tone of the whole article is obviously advocating for the personal political stance of an individual Mr Chang. STSC (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What "other side" do you feel exists about the information that exists in the article? I am really confused here. Do you believe that someone needs to dig up a Chinese government opinion about Tony Chang? Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a pro wrestling match (yes, I'm afraid to say, we have many, including as Featured Articles) will have lots of references to pro wrestling magazines and trade publications. An article about a Chinese dissident will have many references to Chinese dissident sites and promoters. It's inevitable, and it's not bias. Bias means deliberately excluding information because of its point of view. Wnt (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Chang&oldid=1223548173"