Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Shang

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Zhang Shang

Zhang Shang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable and advert-like. The corresponding Chinese article has been deleted because it is User:Shujenchang's self-promotion. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Userfy or Delete. Could probably be worked into User:Shujenchang's page, or we could just delete it.--Omega625 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as there's loads of contents and sources, but still nothing actually apparent for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the number of sources, a review by a Chinese-speaking editor might be helpful.  Sandstein  11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. A perfect case of WP:CITEKILL in order to "establish" notability. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - Most of the sources provided are cherry-picked and do not have a neutral stance. The role played by Zhang has not been significant at all, i.e., just showing a banner and making some noises would not make him notable. STSC (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: As a native speaker of Chinese myself, I'll have a look at these sources one by one:
  1. A video from New Tang Dynasty Television. POV source, and it is just about a single event. Besides, Zhang Shang himself works at another Falun Gong based media Epoch Times as a volunteer (COI).
  2. A source from Central Tibetan Administration. POV too.
  3. WP:BLP1E.
  4. Lots of people meet Dalai Lama every year. Do you mean that they are all notable?
  5. A webpage from his high school website stating that he once got full mark in a Math quiz. Seriously?
  6. Did not mention his name at all, and this has nothing to do with notability.
  7. Wikinews. And has nothing to do with notability.
  8. Blog, not RS.
  9. Same as #8.
  10. As #1.
  11. As #1. And it is just the same content as #10 bar different source.
  12. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  13. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  14. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  15. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  16. WP:BLP1E. This source did not even mention Zhang Shang at all.
  17. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  18. WP:BLP1E. Dubious reliability.
  19. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  20. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  21. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  22. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  23. WP:BLP1E. Similar content to #3.
  24. First hand source and WP:BLP1E.
  25. As #24.
  26. As #24.
  27. As #4.
  28. As #2 and #4.
  29. As #2 and #4.

Therefore, these sources are great in numbers but do nothing in proving the subject's notability.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete The review of the above sources convinced me he is not notable. When you have to say that someone is notable because they met the Dalai Lama, or the Pope, or the President of the US, or other such figures, they are probably not notable at all. If they really are notable it would not be put in the lead to show they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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.