Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Wei (dissident)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. joe deckertalk to me 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Wei (dissident)

[edit]
Chen Wei (dissident) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP article that does not meet WP:RS requirements. Of the citations used, one is a blog, two are from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website which is not a WP:NPOV source, and two are 404 links to boxun.com where the pages do not exist. notability is questionable, and references seem to resemble WP:BOMBARD. The only news references used seem to suggest WP:BLP1E. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Despite the unsubstantiated superlatives from a pressure group, this man is just one name in a dozen of people who are routinely arrested for rabble-rousing in second-tier cities. Quigley (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NYTimes coverage [1] contradicts the trivializing commentary in the nomination, and the Times's treatment of the Chines Human Rights Defenders organization as a credible and reliable source deeply undermines the nom's sourcing arguments. Many advocacy groups, like Amnesty International, have well-earned reputations for accuracy, and the nom et al present no rational basis for rejecting the reputation of reliability indicated by the Times and other news organizations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How does the Times treat CHRD "as a credible and reliable source"? It just attributes a quote to it. When Wikipedia does the same thing, prefacing information from an organization with "According to x, a y...", that usually indicates that the source is unreliable. Quigley (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple good sources, besides the NYT: G news now shows Bloomberg, ABC, Reuters as well as the NYT. sufficient importance likely to be permanent. Obviously, it would be good to have information about the earlier part of his career before this that led him to be considered a dissident, which makes it not one-event.
  • Keep - Notability demonstrated in footnotes showing. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China. As demonstrated by the multiple reliable source, the subject passes WP:BIO. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't make personal attacks; focus on the content. The only "reliable sources" that have briefly mentioned this man all got their information from China Human Rights Defenders, which is a contentious, partisan and interested source. When we speak about the basic criteria for notability, we are looking for "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", which we do not have in the case of Chen Wei, because he is a low profile individual, is likely to remain a low profile individual, and is only notable for one event, which is his arrest in a tumultuous time. Quigley (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, commenting on an observed editing pattern of an editor does not constitute personal attack. Read WP:NPA. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • >The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China
    >The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove non-notable BLP pages and hubbub that seems to be used by editors with activist-like tendencies to make their WP:ADVOCACY clear
    Fixed that for you. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
China Human Rights Defenders may be a partisan source, but that is not a ground for AfD. Since there statement is published by secondary reliable sources, it passes WP:N. The issue is notability. The New York Times has a coverage that is exclusively dedicated to report the arrest of this person. Here are some more coverage I found:
  • In Crackdown by Chinese, a New Arrest, The New York Times, "A human rights advocate in Sichuan has been formally arrested and charged with inciting subversion against the state, according to a statement on Wednesday by China Human Rights Defenders, an advocacy group that tracks violations by the Chinese government. The advocate, Chen Wei, was charged on Monday, and his family was notified on Tuesday. Mr. Chen is the third person in recent days to be charged with inciting subversion in an extraordinarily harsh crackdown on progressives in China that has been unfolding since late February."
  • Sichuan: new arrests for Jasmine Revolution supporters, AsiaNews.it, "Pro-democracy dissidents Ding Mao and Chen Wei are arrested for praising street protests against bad government and corruption. The family of pro-democracy activist Chen Wei in Suining (Sichuan) was also informed that he too was formally charged with “inciting subversion”. Chen was arrested on 20 February." --Reference Desker (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here are two more coverages. CNN has a coverage that is exclusively dedicated to report the arrest of Chen Wei.
NYT and AsiaNews.it are not "more coverage"; they're the same old "reliable" sources that we have been discussing. The CNN and IrishTimes pieces are the same as the NYT, because they all are attributing from CHRD, and "exclusively dedicated" or not, they all have only one or two sentences about him, which really relates to his arrest (the rest is background information about the recent events); such paltry information such as that he lives in Sichuan. AsiaNews.it, by the way, is very questionable, considering that it is a Catholic missionary website with an obvious anti-CPC viewpoint (while the New York Times reported, for example, that Gao Zhisheng says he was tortured, AsiaNews.it reported that he was tortured). The only semblance of detail that we can get is from the CHRD website, which is not reliable. Again, he is only notable for one event in which he was one among hundreds, and he does not and will not have sustained, multiple, independent coverage, because his normal activity is simply not noteworthy. Human rights groups will listen to every allegation that a person is missing, gather all of the information that they can about them (and embellish it to make them seem important), and will publicize it to try to get them freed. That's how the workers get their salaries. But I would hope that Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, has a higher standard for writing about somebody. Quigley (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May be off-topic but a passing note because you said "Human rights groups will listen to every allegation that a person is missing, gather all of the information that they can about them (and embellish it to make them seem important), and will publicize it to try to get them freed. That's how the workers get their salaries." Yes they will gather information about every single arrest, because it IS a human right not be coerced for non-violently exercising freedom of speech. This this right belong to all, no matter how insignificant they are to the authorities. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether what these people were doing was within their human rights or not is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Human rights advocacy groups, at least when dealing with such Bad Countries as China, take the most expansive view of human rights, the most diminutive view of a state's right to keep law and order, the most trusting and uncritical view towards the accusations of dissidents, and the most skeptical and dismissive view towards the accusations of authorities. This is their POV; their purpose, and it is not surprising. This POV is why we prefer high-quality sources, like scholarly sources, for documenting the lives of people and historical events. This requirement is why we cannot write a neutral, disinterested, and quality-sourced biography of Chen Wei, because the only organization who is documenting his life is the same organization that is advocating for his release from prison and working round-the-clock to undermine the government. Quigley (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Reference Desker: But do we really need an article for every single dissident? Because this is where I see this leading to. Kind of strange how an editor seemed to turn every single listed name on China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents as a redlink; is the next trend to make an article for every single one of them? Why why, they're all covered in CHRD references and all, they must be all valid articles, right? Right? This is when this kind of thing starts to get out of hand. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not Ref Desker, but I'd respond with we don't NEED anything, but we SHOULD have articles on dissidents who have been the subject of coverage by multiple sources, as this one has by the links to the NYT and others demonstrate. -- ۩ Mask 14:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep. Chen Wei complies with WP:N, he is not only well-known since he was one of the student leaders in the pro-democracy movement 1989, but he was active in addressing human rights issues in Sichuan, before he now got arrested. The references also comply with WP:RS. — Waikiki_lwt Talk | contribs | email 09:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is now a well-referenced article. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing in the article should be improved, and there are issues with a few of the sources, as noted - but the NYT, LA Times, and others seem to think that this individual is notable enough to cover - which is good enough for me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage in multiple reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the afd process shouldnt be used by chinese communists to delete material on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh seems fairly minor, and the coverage is unconvincing. He is mostly notable for recent coverage (which is something of a fad in Westernjhournalism, but that is another topic). If we have an article that covers these events/arrests in depth then the current content is more relevant there. Otherwise those voting such strong "keep" should be providing sourcing that expands upon the single event currently covered. --Errant (chat!) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chen_Wei_(dissident)&oldid=1146428804"