Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (2nd nomination)

Good call[edit]

Special thanks to Bainer for handling this deletion sensitively. Closing and then waiting a few minutes was a good call. In the event it was tagged for speedy by a second user and then deleted by a third. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible call. Discussions should never be closed until all sides have had a chance to make their case. Anyone with half a brain who read the prior discussions knew that there was a real case for keeping the article. And this was closed prior to giving anyone a chance to make that case in this discussion. GRBerry 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may get elevated higher. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's notes are false[edit]

Closer claimed "The only reason for this nomination is that it is supposedly necessary for procedural reasons, since there has supposedly been less than the necessary 5 days discussion.". Anyone who actually read the DRV discussion would find the following reasons for holding this discussion or keeping the article stated there, which are not about time for discussion:

Several editors objected to the close of AFD1, so there was no consensus for deletion.
The actual consensus in the first AFD was keep.
The arguments about BLP requiring deletion are not persuasive.
The closer of the first AFD did not close based on their discussion, simply based on their personal opinion.
There are multiple reliable sources referring to him as one of the most famous faces in China, so he meets WP:BIO
The content met WP:ATT and WP:NPOV as well as WP:BIO.
There is no BLP issue here, nor is there a 15 minutes of fame issue as the meme has lasted four years.

It seems quite obvious that the closer of this AFD intentionally avoided engaging the actual discussion again, and hence that this close is completely invalid. GRBerry 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]