Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Rui

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 redirect to Bilibili. After reviewing a remarkably long discussion, which has spilled out and seen a remarkable amount of bludgeoning, there is pretty clear consensus to redirect. I will also be protecting the article, users interested in recreating it (if referencing quality increases) can go through AFC. The very fact that there are 109 external links and the deletion discussion is now 5x longer than the article indicates that something is up. While Marvin Twen has asked an administrator to review all sources presented, and I have, at the end of the day the closer is assessing consensus, not their own opinion, and consensus here is to redirect. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Rui[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Chen Rui (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)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR. scope_creepTalk 21:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, there is significant coverage from reliable news sources. Refs are not 'PR'. Also compare with the references used on Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and other CEOs. If the sources are reliable and significant enough to be used for these people, then they are reliable enough to be used for this article.Marven Twen (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Looking at the refs in turn:
  1. Management profile. Self-published source. Non-RS. Not independent, not secondary, not in-depth.
  2. Forbes. Contributor. Non-RS
  3. IPO listing information for company. Non-RS
  4. Bloomberg profile. Paid profile. Non-RS
  5. Bloomberg story. Passing mention. More about the company.
  6. Press-release. Non-RS.
  7. Forbes. Non-RS.
  8. Wallmine. Trash.
  9. WSJ. Company profile. Not specific to BLP.
  10. Interview style article. Primary non-independent. Looks like PR.

I'm not doing anymore, they are all junk. scope_creepTalk 11:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Scope Creep, please avoid getting emotional as that can interfere with one's judgement. Note that there is a serious issue of double standards in this nomination and evaluation of sources. Look at Mark Zuckerberg's page:
  1. [1] is a passing mention not specific to Zuckerberg yet it is still used as a source on his article.
  2. [2] is an online profile as well.
Or take a look at Bill Gates' page:
  1. [3], [4]: these are passing mentions, but they are still used on the article.
There are many examples of such sources, not just on the pages for Gates or Zuckerberg, but on many other CEO's wiki pages as well.
These sources are not 'junk' or 'trash'. If the sources are reliable and noteworthy enough to be used on Zuckerberg or Gates' pages, then they are reliable enough to be used on this article as well. The article subject is also a billionaire and the CEO of a significant internet company and has clear coverage in various languages, with Wikipedia articles existing in these languages as well. The purpose is not to go on a crusade to destroy every single article on the site, but to expand and make Wikipedia more encyclopedic. Thanks for your understanding.Marven Twen (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: changing to Strong Keep. I found and added so many more sources of significant coverage, and there is still so much more. These are the same kinds of sources used on Zuckerberg, Gates, and other reputable CEOs. They come from Bloomberg News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, US Security Exchange Commission, and much more. This is more than enough ample evidence to support keeping this article.
Moreover there are much more quality sources similar to those on the article Todd Krasnow, which survived afd and was kept [5].
And I can continue to expand more if needed. Because of the sheer amount of double standards and prejudice apparent in this afd nomination, I strongly urge that this afd nomination be withdrawn and closed and the article kept. Thanks. Marven Twen (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He has also led numerous significant internet companies including Cheetah Mobile, Kingsoft, and Bilibili.Marven Twen (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi @Marven Twen: It is probably best to concentrate on this article. For Todd Krasnow, he was awarded a heavy-duty award that is coveted, by the folk in his industry. It was and is, absolutely notable. Even without passing mentions, Zuckerberg and Gates have been present in the western culture for so long now, in any situation, they would be notable. It don't think it is a double standard and its disingenuous for you to suggest it. If you man didn't spend so much money on PR, there might be some secondary information showing up, that could be used as a source. It it is all PR and that is the nature of business now. There was even a recent BBC Radio 4 discussion about PR and how it is now hard for decision makers/suppliers/interested parties to actually make contact with decision makers inside a company, because their is a layer of PR that keeps them out. Everything goes through that lens of PR and they generate so much branding muck that impossible for real people to interact. It is almost like a shield. It hard to find real info. It was a very curious conversation and also enlightening. scope_creepTalk 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looks like someone dropped a WP:REFBOMB on this article to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible. When you need 8 refs for the opening sentence just to verify he's an internet entrepreneur and CEO, that indicates a potential issue with WP:GNG for me. Either delete, or in the alternative, redirect to bilibili. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to billibil per ATD (but maybe salt against recreation)]; he may become sufficiently notable in the future to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. That time is not now. This is a case of CEO does what a CEO does with a concomitant layer of promotionalism surrounding him. This is a BLP, and we should be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Likewise, he fails the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content. ——Serial 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.

Response[edit]

Note this response will be lengthy so it is broken up into parts, but give it some time, and please read through to the end. This is important. Thanks.

@Scope creep: I think we are making progress, and I would very much like to end on a consensus to keep, but first we would have a much more productive conversation if you avoid using personally-charged phrases like 'trash', 'junk', 'you man'.

As for the double standards, it works like this: you say source A is unreliable for this article, however source A is still being used on another notable CEO's article like Zuckerberg or Gates. If one says a source is unreliable when it is used on this article, but reliable when used on another article, that is double standards. If it is reliable enough to be used there, then it is reliable enough to be used here.

As for notability I gave numerous sources and pieces of evidence for this in the above response.

  • He is the leader, even CEO, of multiple significant companies Cheetah Mobile, Kingsoft, and Bilibili. This makes him notable.
  • He is a billionaire, and there are only a handful of billionaires in the world, nevermind in Asia. This also makes him notable.
  • Yes, I understand there is so much commotion in the world because of the COVID pandemic. However, as fellow wiki editors, I am sure you agree that we have higher standards. The pandemic does not give us an excuse to bully on Asian CEOs.
  • He already has wikipedia articles in Japanese and Chinese. The coverage in these languages alone already merits making an article on him, and even then, he has much coverage in English language media.
  • Even if that BBC radio message you mentioned is true, your specific usage of PR or press release is so broad and vague that almost every source seems to qualify as PR, which is ridiculous. All I can say is 'lighten up' please.
  • There are numerous sources specific to the subject that is not PR.

Moreover, he has significant coverage from reputable, independent, non-PR sources such as Bloomberg News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, US Security Exchange Commission, etc. Here are some:

  1. [6], significant coverage from Bloomberg, this is no PR, it is independent. Moreover Bloomberg is also used on Gates and Zuckerberg and many other places, so it is reliable coverage.
  1. [7], Forbes is also used on Gates and Zuckerberg and many other places [8]
  1. [9], so it is reliable coverage.
Not specific.
  1. [10], this is significant coverage, regardless of whether it is a contributor or not, that is irrelevant.
Not a reliable source.
According to WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
  1. [11], if you can read Japanese (and not just the Google translated version which often distorts the original meaning), then this is also independent and reliable, not PR at all. Moreover it is from a notable French source Agence France-Presse.
  2. [12], similar note as above from another independent Japanese source
Financial announcements.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with financial announcements, especially since these articles cover more biographical detail.
  1. [13], same note as above except from reliable Chinese language source Tencent
  1. [14], same note as above except from Jieman
  1. [15], even if there is some interview, a lot of other information is secondary, independent, and reliable
  1. [16], reliable source from USA SEC
IPO listing document. Non-notable.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with an IPO listing document. Moreover this is from the US SEC so this is notable.

Even then, I can add many more sources to show this person is obviously notable and satisfies WP:GNG

News Wire. A press-release.
No it is not. According to [18], Bloomberg News is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marven Twen (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC) — Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Primary.
According to WP:BLP primary and self-published sources are acceptable, especially since this is not used exclusively and it reports facts. [20]
For the second time. Forbes is NON-RS.
Forbes is used on Zuckerberg and Gates. Moreover, according to [22], WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
Fails WP:NCORP. Capital raised.
Paid profile.
No evidence that it is paid for. Also per [25], Bloomberg is reliable.
This is about the company. No mention of the founder and its not suitable for a WP:BLP.
That is announcement in the form of a press-release. It is not suitable for a WP:BLP.
It is a paid for profile page. It is a very-low quality references and generally would not be considered for a BLP.
No evidence that it is paid for. Also per [29], Reuters is reliable.
Non-RS. Not a reliable source.
Forbes is used on Zuckerberg and Gates. Moreover, according to [32], WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
Company profile page. Not really applicable to a BLP.
Non-RS.
This is sigcov from staff writer Russell Flannery. According to WP:FORBES this is reliable.
This is RS and in-depth.
This is RS and somewhat in-depth.
Capitals and share transactions. Not suitable for a BLP article.

Non-RS. Not a reliable source.

According to WP:FORBES, Forbes is a reliable source.
That is called passing mention. Not in-depth.
There are multiple mentions to the subject within the article. This is extensive coverage.
Share listing announcement. Completely non-RS.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with an IPO listing document. Moreover this is from the US SEC so this is notable.
Another financial announcement and is unsuitable for a BLP. It would fails WP:NCORP if it was a company article.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with a financial announcement.
This is an announcement of capital raised. It fails WP:NCORP and is unsuitable for a BLP.
According to WP:BLP, there is nothing wrong with an announcement of raised capital.

At first, I did not understand where your deep hatred towards this article came from, hatred apparent since you used the words 'junk' and 'trash' in our conversation. But looking at your past history, it seems that you once had an incident with AFD involving an article you wanted to keep so badly. [46]

There was an article called Ferdinand Feichtner you wanted to keep so much that you started hurling personal attacks at others [47] and you were even banned for it [48] [49]. Moreover you used an IP sock to evade the ban [50] [51].

This past and your current crusade to delete almost every new article on wikipedia essentially invalidate this Afd nomination. It seems that you really wanted to keep Ferdinand Feichtner in Afd, but because it was deleted, you went on a revenge spree to delete every other new article, to pick on others to give yourself a sense of satisfaction and justice. [52]

If your hatred towards this article subject Chen Rui stems from a desire for revenge, then that is extremely unhealthy and forbidden on wikipedia per WP:REVENGE, nevermind you are targeting the wrong person.

So my question to you is: do you want to become the same kind of person who deleted Ferdinand Feichtner, an article you really valued and wanted kept, or do you want to move on from that past, admit the notability of the subject, and keep this article. Scope Creep, we can help each other. But if that past continues to haunt you, and you insist on finding every excuse to prolong this debate, then that is counterproductive to the spirit of wikipedia to make it as encyclopedic as possible. Ultimately, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, so even I must admit that I empathize with your frustration when one of your articles was deleted. Hopefully, the same mistake is not repeated.

Initially there were 3 sources on this article, so I gave you the benefit of doubt and added 20+ more sources and vastly expanded the content. You said you do not want to review any more sources, and I can understand.

I do not think either you or I want to waste anymore time on this debate. This CEO has more than enough notable evidence to merit keeping this article. All I am asking is that you please close this AfD case and keep the article. If you do, it would show how much you have grown and moved on from the past, and you will be even more respected not just by me, but also by the wiki community as a whole. Thank you very much. Marven Twen (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll review these tomorrow. If they are not all junk. It is a lot and that amount definitely counts, but it is the quality more so than anything else. scope_creepTalk 23:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The majority of these are junk, capital and share announcements, duplicates of the same articles, passing mentions, press-releases, company and paid profiles, and a whole load of non-RS scrap for an editor who is likely a paid editor and part of the team that does the PR, and who managed to move the article from draft, three times. The article is now junk and should be WP:TNT'd. It completely ignores Wikipedia policies, as a kind of right to exist article, because Zuckerberg/Gates has a article. There is 2 references that are full features. scope_creepTalk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Scope Creep, you are making repeated false accusations against me, and you are getting emotional. Many of the sources are actually reliable, not 'junk' as you often like to say. See my responses above for reference. Marven Twen (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Salient points are that
  1. WP:BLP does not preclude financial statements, especially when those news sources give biographical info outside capital and share info.
  2. WP:BLP does not completely preclude primary or self-published sources, especially since there are only 1 or 2 above, out of 20+ sources, and moreover they are used sparingly, not for the whole article.
  3. According to [53], WP:FORBES, Forbes, Bloomberg, Reuters are reliable sources.

Given this there is a plethora of RS to go off, besides those that Scope creep mentioned. This article merits a strong keep.

Also Scope creep, please stop editing and obfuscating my responses. Marven Twen (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Tending delete, but willing to change my mindChanged to keep below. We need a couple of reliable, independent sources with in-depth coverage of the article subject (as opposed to the companies he has been involved in, with passing mention of him as an individual). The (main?) contributor has provided lots of sources, in the article and here, but the ones I've spot checked (and can read, due to language issues) all seem to fail at least one of these requirements. I am sensitive to the fact that cultural bias could get in the way here, so I am happy to change my mind, but only if someone provides 2-3 such sources, and if they are in another language, someone uninvolved verifies they are reliable, independent, and indepth. @Marven Twen:: 1) Once notability is established, it is quite fine to use also other sources to reference specific items in the article where there is a need, so your frustration that similar sources to some in your long list are being used in other articles, is misplaced. To move ahead, you (or someone else) needs to identify which of the long list are the 2-3 minimum that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. 2) Your personal attacks on the nominator aren't helping. 3) Given your involvement and passion here, it is fair to ask: do you have any conflict of interest on this article, whether paid or not (e.g. personal friendship or professional link}? This is not an accusation, merely a reasonable concern given the circumstances. @Scope creep:: Your concern for keeping promotion off wikipedia is appreciated, as well as your feeling of being personally attacked here. However, your language isn't helping either; I'd suggest in the future making the same points you are making without using loaded terms like "junk" or "PR". Martinp (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martinp, firstly, I want to thank you for trying to understand both points of view. Second, to answer your other question, Scope creep has already repeatedly falsely accused me of this (COI and Paid), and I have repeatedly said no. I have nothing to do with the subject, and I am not paid. Yet he continues to falsely accuse me of such. [54] [55] So while Scope creep's point of view is understood, can people understand my point of view--how he is repeatedly personally attacking me? Moreover, on this AfD page, I have asked him repeatedly to tone down his language, especially the use of second person 'you' along with words like 'junk' and 'trash' (which I thank you Martinp for realizing). From the beginning, I have tried hard to use third person and avoid 2nd person. However, he has repeatedly made edits to many parts of my own response that are relevant to Afd [56], violating [57]. I am just stating facts, and I am just putting this here in response to Martinp's specific question as many of the responses here are heavily one-sided seeing only Scope creep's pov, which is unfair. Anyways, I'd rather not discuss these things further, but rather discuss the sources and how they further demonstrate the notability of the article. Thank you. Marven Twen (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject, only passing mentions and coverage of bilibili. Even if the article is kept, this is still a case of WP:BLOWITUP. Woodroar (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Yup! refs are PR junk. Furthermore @Marven Twen, attacking Scope_creep with nonsensical comments like this certainly doesn’t land credibility to any of your claims. Do keep that in mind for future sake. The ref bombing also didn’t help, isn’t helping & will not help.Celestina007 14:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to bilibili. Despite copious refbombing, there is no evidence of notability independent of the parent article and notability is not inherited. None of the references that are available in the article or in searches satisfy the three prongs of significance, independence, and reliability. What sources are available that are significant are about the company, not its CEO, and the ones which are about him are neither independent nor reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to bilibili and protect per SN - the sourcing just isn't there to support notability, I couldn't find any that isn't either affiliated, unreliable or passing mentions. GirthSummit (blether) 16:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry he is not notable at all. Hes rich, thats it as far as I can see. Really does look like just a paid for Wiki page to meGiant-DwarfsTalk 23:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources:

[58], [59] [60] [61] [62] [63], [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

Based on [71], WP:V, other language sources can be used, especially since they supplement the already existing English sources. Chen Rui has articles in Japanese and Chinese already as well. Moreover, he is the leader and CEO of multiple companies. All this put together clearly pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE, meriting a strong keep of this article.Marven Twen (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is another refbomb. Which are the THREE sources which you believe are the best, and most clearly demonstrate the subject's notability according to our guidelines? GirthSummit (blether) 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]: According to [74] Xinhua’s use should be attributed. However, this is not a contentious issue regarding China, and the in-depth reliable coverage on the subject establishes notability.
  3. [75]

So these are three such independent reliable sources, but I also want to bring up two sources that colleague Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth. [76]

  1. [77],
  2. [78]

Also according to [79] [80], Chen Rui won the "Business Model Innovator of the Year” (well-known within China), so according to WP:ANYBIO, this could further help establish reputability.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this. Marven Twen (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These all look like industry puff pieces to me. Woodroar (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, Xinhua is not even industry, it is state-run, and its use is acceptable so long as attributed and not involving contentious political topics as per [81]. Second, 'puff pieces' is a weasel phrase. Third, [82] [83] do not forbid these sources, especially since they give reliable significant coverage. If allowed, may I ask what User:Girth Summit thinks since he asked the question first. Thank you. Marven Twen (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well, xinhuanet doesn't have the level of reliability that I would look for in a source that was being used to establish notability. I'm not familiar enough with the sina.com website to comment on its reliability, and I'm relying on machine translation which probably isn't the best for getting to tone across, but I confess that they do look pretty puffy to me. I'll watch this discussion and see what others think, but I'm not persuaded at present. GirthSummit (blether) 17:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the two sources Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth [84]? I will repeat them here for convenience.

  1. [85],
  2. [86]

Marven Twen (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The first one might be usable; the second one has someone else's byline, but it is almost entirely written by the subject in the first person, so does not help establish notability. GirthSummit (blether) 17:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true primary sources are to be used in caution for an article [87], but it also contains some independent secondary coverage, and the info appears reliable.Marven Twen (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Here is also a third source [88] from Bloomberg News, secondary and reliable per [89]. It is already in the article, but I raise it here since it has not been specifically commented on.Marven Twen (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Marven Twen:, there is no requirement for !voters to analyze every one of your refbombed citations but since I did read through that article, I'll comment. The Bloomberg article is one of the few that is in a RS. Unfortunately, only all of one sentence is about Chen. It fails to establish notability by any reasonable standard. Please read WP:BLUDGEON before posting any other supposed sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, in [90], there are clearly multiple sentences and at least 8 paragraphs that mention Chen. Marven Twen (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The sum total material actually about Chen: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chen Rui, 41...his 24.2 percent stake now worth $1 billion...Chen was born in 1978...Chen studied communication engineering at Chengdu University of Information Technology, and joined ...Kingsoft Corp. after graduating in 2001. Nine years later, he co-founded Cheetah Mobile That this tiny amount of information is spread over about half of the column inches does not change my assessment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That amount is not 'tiny' but I will let others make their own judgement. Marven Twen (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Marven Twen, can I please ask, have you ever contributed in any way at all to any other page, discussion or talk page anywhere on Wiki apart from this one page?Giant-DwarfsTalk 22:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giant-Dwarfs: No, you're right: with 31 out of 42 mainspace edits to either the Chen Rui or Billibili pages, this is a paid editor with a bigger conflict of interest than Van Gogh with sunflower futures. ——Serial 05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also say attacks such as this [91] immediately against me for the simple reason I did not agree with you do not show your case or manner in the best light Giant-DwarfsTalk 23:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Dwarfs, these personal attacks and false accusations against me are not relevant to the Afd. But since you do ask here, I feel somewhat obligated to explain to others: that was just a suggestion based on Giant Dwarf's past editing experience. He only created his account recently and made his first edit yesterday on August 28 [92], around the same time as the ANI report was submitted by User:Scope creep. Moreover Giant-Dwarfs has made similar edits to the ANI and the Chen Rui Afd supporting Scope creep, indicating spa. [93] [94] Also Giant-Dwarfs' recent edit [95] on 197.89.19.112's signature indicate that he is an ip sock of User:197.89.19.112 which is currently blocked for personal attacks [96][97]. Also, these users tend to make many spelling and grammatical mistakes, which is unacceptable by wiki standards. It is likely Giant-Dwarfs is a sock of somebody, even if not Scope creep.

I see no point in continuing this ridiculous side-conversation on this page. I will let others judge based on these above facts. I am only answering once because Giant Dwarfs brought it up in an attempt to cast aspersions on me. But the ANI is a more appropriate place for this off-topic tangent. Marven Twen (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to bilibili and consider salting. I looked at all 24 citations, relying on Google Translate for the Chinese ones. Only 2 are anything like in-depth - My Story and Chen talked to me about his experiences - which are based on interviews and are therefore not independent. This is WP:REFBOMBING. Zero secondary WP:RS sources = fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind to keep. Above (now struck) I wrote I was tending to delete. However, looking through both the refbombing and some of the unfortunate discourse on this page, the following 3 sources raised above by @Marven Twen: are significant enough to move me into the keep column: [98] [99] [100] . I don't know enough about Chinese press dynamics to be 100% confident exactly how independent they are, but except when public figures do something truly controversial, I do think we'd be surprised how much lazy paraphrasing of information initially furnished by subjects makes its way unchallenged into independent, so-called "reliable" sources anyway, so I'm prepared to potentially cut a bit of slack here, especially given legitimate concerns about cultural bias. These seems good enough. Based on this individual's business accomplishments, it does seem we should try have an article about him if we can, and these 3 sources (and potentially others in the whole excessive range of sources identified) mean we can. I also note that though Marven Twen has made few contributions outside this subject area, in response to my (and others') requests above, they have asserted they are not paid and do not have a COI. While I was initially suspicious given the nature of their involvement and interaction style, I am also willing to accept their assurances, and note that personal enthusiasm can be a powerful force for writing Wikipedia articles! Martinp (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure. Breaking these down:
    Jiemian.com is a relatively new news/social media site with an incredibly low bar for publishing content. They do have staff reporters, but those articles have a "reporter" by-line and mention the author's role, like senior editor and senior reporter. This article's author doesn't appear to be a staff reporter, nor can I find any mention of them writing for reliable media outlets. I also can't find any reports of Jiemian winning any journalism awards, which casts doubt on their reputatation. Much of their content appears blatantly promotional, like translating this article by Margaret Atwood to promote a Chinese translation of The Testaments.
    The Sina source is about the company. Chen Rui is quoted several times but there is very little biographical information about him, essentially mentioning 2 or 3 places that he's worked. WP:GNG and WP:BIO require significant coverage of the subject and I don't think this is it.
    The Shine.cn source was written by Chen Rui himself for their series of "40 People, 40 Stories, 40 Years" feel-good puff pieces. There's a very small biographical section at the top, but that's pretty typical for promotional content like this.
    Personally, I don't think these sources meet our requirements for coverage, especially for living persons. Woodroar (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Summary of some points and remaining questions of this Afd conversation

I am going to quote what User:Martinp said as it is quite insightful and relevant to our conversation. I am sensitive to the fact that cultural bias could get in the way here, so I am happy to change my mind, but only if someone provides 2-3 such sources, and if they are in another language, someone uninvolved verifies they are reliable, independent, and indepth.

Also, I am sensitive to User:Eggishorn’s advice, so I will quote part of the WP:BLUDGEON as I think it is important for all of us. Never reply to a comment right after you see it. Wait a bit, clear your thoughts, and make sure they are saying what you think they are saying. Often, someone else will reply back and correct an error or offer some insight that is new to you. Give other editors enough time to agree with you.

Also, taking into account WP:REFBOMB and User:Girth Summit’s WP:THREE, I will try to give a few sources at a time.

I gave some time for others to put some thoughts. All I want to do is summarize the current state of some of the sources.

  1. [101], Scope Creep said this is RS and in-depth. Girth Summit also said this may be usable.
  1. [102], No consensus, jury is still out. All I will say is that Bloomberg News is RS and that more than half the article is about Chen. I will let these facts speak for themselves.
  1. [103], [104] No consensus.

Thus, based on Martinp’s advice, we have at least 1 RS (possibly 2 or more based on other people's responses), and we need at least one more to establish notability.

Here are 3-5 more. I could have put much more, but I deliberately limited the number.

  1. [105]
  2. [106]
  3. [107]
  4. [108]
  5. [109]

And before a user tries to say they are ‘all this or all that’, could we try to analyze each one at a time rather than assign one cover term to everything (which is hardly ever the case).

If anything, I was hoping an established admin preferably familiar with the Chinese language could make an objective assessment of these sources. Many people here already admit that they cannot read Japanese or Chinese fluently, and moreover Google Translate gives inadequate translations. That is fine, but it is ridiculous to say that a source is unreliable just because it was written in a foreign language.

But I understand that users--nevermind admins--have no obligation to comment. I respect that. I am just saying if one comments, can we please analyze each in detail as that might be more beneficial to the conversation.

I am pretty sure at least one of the sources satisfies all three: independence, sigcov, and reliability. If even then, somebody tries to wantonly dismiss all of these nearing 50+ references for billionaire CEO Chen Rui who has lots of coverage in multiple languages, then all one can conclude--as Martin hinted--is that there is serious WP:BIAS and WP:SBEXT inherent in the Wikipedia Afd process, exacerbated by all the anti-Asian media involving the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Anyways, these systemic biases are things I unfortunately cannot change. The only thing I am able to do is continue showing more evidence of notability and sigcov for Rui. Thanks. I hope somebody understands and keeps this article.

At this point, it is perhaps best for an admin to take leadership and make an authoritative objective assessment of the sources. Thanks. Marven Twen (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message to the admin who closes this discussion: With the 7 day deadline finally approaching, I think most of us here would agree that there has been extensive debate from multiple parties expressing sundry views. If I may politely ask, even if this debate is not closed as Keep, can it at least be closed as No Consensus?

It is in none of our interests to prolong this debate needlessly as that would only invite further trouble. We all want to get along with our lives and move on, and we do not want our lives to be forestalled by a single dramatic AfD.

It has been a long week. If the debate is closed as 'No Consensus' or Keep and the article stays as is, I myself will take a wiki vacation and not edit anything for a week, perhaps even a month or longer. Thank you very much for your consideration on this. Marven Twen (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author has mentioned me in one of their various summaries/closing statements, I'll just note that my position has not changed. The sources are weak, and spammy, and while some of them are better than others I'm not persuaded that GNG is met. My position remains that this should be redirected to the company he is head of, and that the redirect be protected to prevent recreation. Should better sourcing become available in future, a new article can be written and submitted to AfC, and the protection lifted upon its acceptance. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chen_Rui&oldid=975692825"