Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Wei (pilot)
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 Hainan Island incident. Merge necessary info at your pleasure. Kurykh 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wang Wei (pilot)[edit]
- Wang Wei (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable. Only significance hinges on his name rhyming with "Wrong Way". All other information are part of Hainan Island incident.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Hainan Island incident, which already seems to give significant coverage to the topic. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect per NickPenguin. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as nominator--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the incident. The significance was great to the Chinese, who created approximately 1 bajillion online memorials to the guy, but I don't think there's real notability here. He is, however, a valid search term. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per above. I do not like the "Wrong Way" allusion by the nominator as it reeks of bias. He was a hero in his country and here we are making fun of his name. As a sign of good faith the merge would be more appropriate until Chinese wikipedians can expand it.--Lenticel (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hero? We are not even sure who crashes into who, so calling him a hero is biased and POV pushing. His only significance is the name rhyming which is an interesting twist considering the circumstances of his death. We are not making fun of his name, other than stating the fact that he got nominated for a Darwin Award for his name (a section certain Chinese wikipedians insist on deleting with no credible arguments) Other than that, he is not notable enough to deserve his own article. Chinese wikipedian? You want them to create a POV article, don't you?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to pick up a fight with anyone but you're accusing me of encouraging other people to create a POV article. The darwin award that you mentioned as an assertion of notability is certainly a Western POV and according to that topic's article is created to make fun of people. A POV article would be an article on the pilot under the Western prospective. I was only stating that the Chinese side be mentioned as well to balance out the bias and as a sign of good faith that they should have claims here as well. But since RS are unavailable at this time, I was recommending a merge. Then out of the blue you accuse me of POV pushing because I don't like the person seen only in the West's perspective. Remember the en.wikipedia is not for people where the English language came from but for those who understand the English language.--Lenticel (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to forget that we are all here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. The problem here is not that Chinese POV is not represented, but that Chinese Wikipedians, due to nationalist feelings, refused to include your so-called Western POV in this article. Obviously, nationalism has no place in wikipedia. I digged up some quality references last year to represent Western POV to balance out the Chinese POV and eventually gave up. (there's a long discussion in the talkpage with vastly divided opinions, note that all favored of deleting the Wrong Way section are self-proclaimed Chinese) A Chinese admin again deleted the section last week and refused to discuss on the talkpage. I'm not looking for a fight, but without NPOV, this article has no merit, not to mention all other info. other than the wrong way section is already mentioned in Hainan Island incident.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you just accused me of not understanding Wikipedia but I'll let that pass since you're willing to end this conflict. I will now give you advice under the condition that you will not accuse me of anything anymore. On me: I know that you have a conflict with Chinese wikipedians and I understand that it is stressful but that doesn't mean that you can accuse uninvolved people as Chinese POV pushers. On Chinese POV: You should have given the whole story in your first post rather than now so other editors will understand the problem. Anyway, deletion will not make NPOV go away. Chances are the NPOV will creep back on the main article and an international incident like that can't be easily nom'ed. This also gives the wrong signal to those you have conflict with (ex. You won't agree with me? Let's see about that!) and would result in more conflicts and more stress. You're right, nationalist views of any country have no place in Wikipedia but consensus has. I strongly suggest that you go on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If that fails, there is still the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I know it will be long but it sends the message that you're willing to talk with them and not go to low tactics such as edit wars. --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main reason is the article's notability issue. Sure, the Wrong Way section pisses me off a whole lot and it is obvious that many members of WikiProject:China hold grudges against me, but these issues have nothing to do with this Afd and are not the reasons I nominated this article for deletion. The Wrong Way section obviously wouldn't make the main article since the article isn't about the pilot but the entire incident, so this won't be an issue on the main article. One of the reasons I nominated this Afd other than notability is to avoid edit warring and escalation of this conflict. As for dispute resolutions, I have no ongoing dispute with those wikipedians other than the notability issue of this article. I have no interest in any lengthy litigation since my time on 'pedia is limited. I do appreciate your effort to communicate.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you just accused me of not understanding Wikipedia but I'll let that pass since you're willing to end this conflict. I will now give you advice under the condition that you will not accuse me of anything anymore. On me: I know that you have a conflict with Chinese wikipedians and I understand that it is stressful but that doesn't mean that you can accuse uninvolved people as Chinese POV pushers. On Chinese POV: You should have given the whole story in your first post rather than now so other editors will understand the problem. Anyway, deletion will not make NPOV go away. Chances are the NPOV will creep back on the main article and an international incident like that can't be easily nom'ed. This also gives the wrong signal to those you have conflict with (ex. You won't agree with me? Let's see about that!) and would result in more conflicts and more stress. You're right, nationalist views of any country have no place in Wikipedia but consensus has. I strongly suggest that you go on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If that fails, there is still the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I know it will be long but it sends the message that you're willing to talk with them and not go to low tactics such as edit wars. --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to forget that we are all here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. The problem here is not that Chinese POV is not represented, but that Chinese Wikipedians, due to nationalist feelings, refused to include your so-called Western POV in this article. Obviously, nationalism has no place in wikipedia. I digged up some quality references last year to represent Western POV to balance out the Chinese POV and eventually gave up. (there's a long discussion in the talkpage with vastly divided opinions, note that all favored of deleting the Wrong Way section are self-proclaimed Chinese) A Chinese admin again deleted the section last week and refused to discuss on the talkpage. I'm not looking for a fight, but without NPOV, this article has no merit, not to mention all other info. other than the wrong way section is already mentioned in Hainan Island incident.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to pick up a fight with anyone but you're accusing me of encouraging other people to create a POV article. The darwin award that you mentioned as an assertion of notability is certainly a Western POV and according to that topic's article is created to make fun of people. A POV article would be an article on the pilot under the Western prospective. I was only stating that the Chinese side be mentioned as well to balance out the bias and as a sign of good faith that they should have claims here as well. But since RS are unavailable at this time, I was recommending a merge. Then out of the blue you accuse me of POV pushing because I don't like the person seen only in the West's perspective. Remember the en.wikipedia is not for people where the English language came from but for those who understand the English language.--Lenticel (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hero? We are not even sure who crashes into who, so calling him a hero is biased and POV pushing. His only significance is the name rhyming which is an interesting twist considering the circumstances of his death. We are not making fun of his name, other than stating the fact that he got nominated for a Darwin Award for his name (a section certain Chinese wikipedians insist on deleting with no credible arguments) Other than that, he is not notable enough to deserve his own article. Chinese wikipedian? You want them to create a POV article, don't you?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect looks like the best solution.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2007 (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.