Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Chan (2nd nomination)

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Chan[edit]

Questionable notability of a single note character, I mean when have disrupting an Olympic Torch Ceremony made a person notable, plus TV and all other media appearances relates to the protest. This creator will need to bear in mind WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Donnie Park (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Chan is very notable for her activist role in Hong Kong and she is controversial figure in Hong Kong. By searching her Chinese name "陳巧文" the keyword in Google, at least the first ten pages are completely about her (Google search; the top search results for "Christina Chan" and "Chan Hau Man" are also largely related her). It is not only about single event of torch relay. Other aspects includes about her stand on Tibetan issue, her initiative action demanding the deposition of the president of HKU student union for his speech of June 4. Macau government has refused her from entering Macau because of her being activist. In the previous deletion nomination, it is about single event. But this reason cannot be applied to this deletion. There is no reason that the topic is not notable and this deletion nomination is questionably a kind of abuse using "Notability". — HenryLi (Talk) 07:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Donnie Park that this person does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria now. Rosa Parks is an example of someone that over time because notable for activist work. But it is not something that can be achieved in the short term by the nature of the way that the notabily in this area is gained. It takes many years of hard work to reach the level of activism to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. Premature media attention is an artifact of the type of work that she does since gaining media exposure is part of her work. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you point out which part she does not meet notability? Notability guideline does not relies on length of works. The topic is not about one event. (Protest in Olympic torch relay, Suspension of account, Privacy by Facebook in April and May 2008; Refuse of entrance by Macau Government on June 2008; Protest in Olympic event in August 2008; Television programmes about cyber-bullying in December 2008 and February 2009; HKU incident in April 2009) Multiple events are sourced by newspapers, magazine, television of independent sources. She is a public and controversial figure who is widely known in Hong Kong and partly in China. She is also an icon of young activist in Hong Kong and frequently asked for comments and reviews in media (Recent comments on the June 4 Massacre / Incident (Apple Daily, a Chinese newspaper, 5th June 2009)). — HenryLi (Talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will point it out to you, WP:NOTNEWS and yes she is primarily notable for only one event which is the torch relay disruption, these links such as the TV shows relates to it, especially the cyberbullying and yes I watched them (though I am not a Chinese, therefore my language skills are non-existent) before making my final consideration to nominate this for AFD, plus why being refused entry makes a person notable, as that reason obviously relates to that disruption. I'm sure any government the believes that some individual who is going to come to a country to be disruptive is bound to be refused entry, am I right.

To answer your clain that she is also an icon of young activist in Hong Kong - this translates as WP:ILIKEIT and where is the source to claim it if you disagree. What other third party sources makes her notable, other than that tabloid link you gave me (Apple Daily is indeed a tabloid paper) and as for that link, how are we going to read that, all I'm getting is a blank page.

Personally I don't feel anything to do with Facebook make her notable, plus any business to do with HKU is too trivial to count as notable as well, also I watched that program part just (the English one of course) and all it does is relates to the Olympic Torch relay which is considered as WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, I'm sure that Chinese version is as well, but then Kong Kong is a small country (I used to live and worked there for a year). IMO, that August disruption is trivial to that of Neil Horan (disrupting a Formula One race and the Olympic Marathon both on live broadcast) or as an activist, to that of Ms Parks like FloNight said. Also condiser Swampy, who is notable through a number of media appearances.

The bottom line is, all these references relates as just that single event that got shot down at a quick flick of a switch and that is disrupting a Olympic torch relay, personally what you said will not make me change my opinion. Donnie Park (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

PS, the first 10 ghits are blogs, and links to Chinese Wikipedias, so is that valid.

Keep. The sources in the article, plus others found by Google News, show pretty obvious notability for more that one event. I must say that I'm disturbed by the fact that an arbitrator, of all people, is trying to get this deleted against the obvious evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is involved in multiple incident. Also, she is well known in HK. --RayYung (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the torch relay pages. Not very notable, hardly a selfimmolation or a suicide bombing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with the idea that her activism can be added to other pages in Wikipedia, so I considered voting to merge. But instead of deciding to vote merge in this discussion, I think that the article should be deleted and a discussion should be started on the appropriate talk pages about whether a concise statement about her activism should be included in the other articles. Unfortunately, voting to merge has procedural and process implications that make the situation confusing. Often the material is already covered in other articles. Additionally, since many people will not agree that the precise wording of the contributions on this page should be added to the other pages, I've come to think that voting to delete and then restarting the discussion works better. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is notable for more than one event. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Go on, list them all, other than those I already mentioned (such as the August Olympic disruption, which is trivial), don't forget how many local papers are there in HK, and from what I know any old crap gets put into the news such as Apple Daily (because I flicked through it once). I still don't think the cyberbully makes her notable, even if it was shown on TV, neither being refused entry to Macau does or even HKU. Donnie Park (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Here's Fox News on the disruption of the torch relay, this is Time Magazine writing about the subject's protest during the Olympics, and here we have the BBC's coverage of her campaign to oust the Students' Union president. That's three events, and hardly local coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If you mind to check, all of the abovementioned events have reached "significant coverage in reliable sources". Phil Bridger has given a few examples. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 04:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I don't know what both of you are talking about, I did not ask for trivial sources, what I asked for is what is so notable about these trivial claims of notability. Donnie Park (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. How are the sources that I linked above trivial? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage to meet the notability guideline and agree with those arguing above that it was for several events so it is not a One Event bio. Davewild (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as what the non said Is this debate was to end as keep, it just shows how low Wikipedia has come. is this a way to claim notability, you gotta be a attention whore & go to some event where anything involving the Chinese are present and disrupt it, get Tibet involved - with some looks and go whining to the press (like she did on the shows) and your fanbase will give you a Wikipedia page of your own— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.241.156 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-24 11:20:03
- If I'm not mistaken, only users can vote? --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 12:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Anyone, registered or not, can take part in AfD discussions, which are not votes. The closing admin will judge how much weight to give the above unregistered editor's comments according to how well grounded they are in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to be honest I would rather withdraw this nomination than allow it to proceed on. After reading the WP:BLP guidelines, the moral of this is ... go and disrupt a peaceful procession to seek attention, involve sensitive human rights issue that will make you noticed, dressed semi-naked and when arrested, sunsequently harrassed (by those who disagree with you), go start a crybaby mentality at the media. Repeat this over and over again, get some press to throw their weight behind your back (which is no difficult even for a small country) and you will get yourself a Wikipedia article in no time (that is my advice for those who want a Wikipedia BLP article of themselves), at the end of the day all I was trying to do is rid Wikipedia of junk that it is plagued with. Chris Crocker gor his with that crybaby mentality, so has Neil Horan who got his by disrupting a major sport event twice. Donnie Park (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I did not vote in this AfD, but let me point this out - whether or not a person is notable really is irrelevant to how the person became notable. WP notability guidelines are designed so that, as much as possible, it does not put itself in a position to judge whether or not the actions of an individual qualifies him or her as notable. It tries to leave that job to the media. You may think that despite media coverage, the quality of Christina Chan's actions do not grant her notability, but another WP editor may disagree. WP's guidelines are supposed to help us avoid these disagreements when we use the quality and amount of media coverage a person received, instead of the quality of the person's actions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note that Donnie Park refers to WP:BLP in the comments above, but then goes on to accuse the article subject of acting with the motivation of getting a Wikipedia article written about her (can anyone really believe that she was thinking of Wikipedia when she was making her protests?), and to call people "cry-babies", without any supporting evidence. Those accusations are blatant violations of WP:BLP (which applies to discussion pages as well as articles), rather than anything in this article. I had always thought that Lenin had coined a good phrase for people who try to get articles such as this deleted, but it seems, from reading the Wikipedia article about that phrase, that he never actually said it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Withdrawing nomination: what with just saying that I do not wish to carry on with any argument there and would like to decalre this nomination withdrawn. Donnie Park (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (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.