Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) at 11:36, 17 April 2022 (Fix lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 DELETE The internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not, and there's no need to write an article to keep him embarassing him. If anything (and if it's deemed appropiated), maybe mentioned in pass in the article about the meme. We're not dicks (fluke and rants to my talk) -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person himself is not notable. Besides being the butt (not even originator) of an internet phenomenon (which, in my subjective opinion, wasn't that much of a phenomenon as much as a short lived burst of popularity), he has done nothing to warrant inclusion. By statement of WP's notablity policy, there is no significant coverage, and definitely no multiple reliable secondary sources. ALTON .ıl 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. PrinceGloria 00:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources, and being covered in international media ranks as "significant coverage". He's a "cult figure"[1], a "nationwide celebrity" [2] and "one of the most famous faces in China"[3]. — Matt Crypto 02:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is widely covered in Chinese news sources, as far as I know. WooyiTalk, Editor review 02:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily meets the threshold of WP:BIO, having been the subject of articles in multiple national news sources years after his initial appearance (as cited here by User:Matt Crypto). --DeLarge 11:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now expanded with multiple citations from four independent news sources. --DeLarge 12:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This further goes to show the fallacy of WP:BIO and the fact that it urgently needs to be amended... PrinceGloria 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Either delete or redirect to List of Internet phenomena with omission of the subject's name, per BLP-related concern that giving massive Wikipedia-based publicity to this sort of "Internet phenomenon" has the potential to damage people's lives for little encyclopedic purpose. See generally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he already has had massive, international publicity (c.f. "nationwide celebrity" and "one of the most famous faces in China" quotes from above). If Qian Zhijun's life is going to be damaged by this, it's going to happen (or has already happened) with or without us: documenting it on Wikipedia is not going to affect that in any substantial way. — Matt Crypto 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, but Wikipedia is now a top-ten website, is the first Google hit when many people's names are searched, and produces publicity of longer duration than many other types of reports and sites. I think that gives us certain responsibilities to be reasonably considerate of how what we write affects people's real lives, regardless of what others might do. See my link above for more thoughts on this. I do acknowledge this is not the worst instance of the problem, however. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mostly agree with WP:BLP and where I disagree I at least understand the motivations behind contrary opinions to my own. But in this case, I don't see any problem whatsoever. This is a 5k stub, but has fifteen citations from four sources (and I could have used a lot more), all of them internationally respected news media for whom Qian Zhijun was the subject of their coverage. His fifteen minutes of fame have now lasted for four years and counting. The page is written in a neutral fashion. There's a redirect from his better known name ("Little Fatty") to the eponymous target article, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME but more in the spirit of WP:BLP. There's no mention of his exact birth date as per WP:BLP recommendations even though it's mentioned on his own site. And given that his official website translates as "littlefatty.cn", he's hardly likely to complain that the moniker is mentioned on WP, or that this article is extending his notoriety against his will -- in that respect he's a much more willing participant in his continued infamy than the Star Wars kid, and at least as willing as Gary Brolsma. This is an appropriately compact article with no fluff to pad it out, no trivia/pop culture appearances sections, no copyviolating examples of his "fame". Maybe ditch the dumpvideo.net external link (better ones are available from the BBC and Reuters), but aside from that, what exactly concerns you? --DeLarge 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- before I add my input, could somebody advise on how keeping this article could have a negative impact on this young man's life? I'm not imaginitive enough to figure out how the noteriety will hurt him. Bahamut0013 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mostly agree with WP:BLP and where I disagree I at least understand the motivations behind contrary opinions to my own. But in this case, I don't see any problem whatsoever. This is a 5k stub, but has fifteen citations from four sources (and I could have used a lot more), all of them internationally respected news media for whom Qian Zhijun was the subject of their coverage. His fifteen minutes of fame have now lasted for four years and counting. The page is written in a neutral fashion. There's a redirect from his better known name ("Little Fatty") to the eponymous target article, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME but more in the spirit of WP:BLP. There's no mention of his exact birth date as per WP:BLP recommendations even though it's mentioned on his own site. And given that his official website translates as "littlefatty.cn", he's hardly likely to complain that the moniker is mentioned on WP, or that this article is extending his notoriety against his will -- in that respect he's a much more willing participant in his continued infamy than the Star Wars kid, and at least as willing as Gary Brolsma. This is an appropriately compact article with no fluff to pad it out, no trivia/pop culture appearances sections, no copyviolating examples of his "fame". Maybe ditch the dumpvideo.net external link (better ones are available from the BBC and Reuters), but aside from that, what exactly concerns you? --DeLarge 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, but Wikipedia is now a top-ten website, is the first Google hit when many people's names are searched, and produces publicity of longer duration than many other types of reports and sites. I think that gives us certain responsibilities to be reasonably considerate of how what we write affects people's real lives, regardless of what others might do. See my link above for more thoughts on this. I do acknowledge this is not the worst instance of the problem, however. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he already has had massive, international publicity (c.f. "nationwide celebrity" and "one of the most famous faces in China" quotes from above). If Qian Zhijun's life is going to be damaged by this, it's going to happen (or has already happened) with or without us: documenting it on Wikipedia is not going to affect that in any substantial way. — Matt Crypto 00:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagine you're a random teenager. And imagine one day someone decides that your face is cute, and should be plastered all over the Internet. Imagine that your life is turned upside-down by the publicity, and that your friends and schoolmates get to make fun of you mercilessly for it, and that the notoriety follows you into young adulthood, and that anytime someone sees your face they think of you as the fat kid with the funny face on the Internet, and anytime you apply for a job or a scholarship or even a blind date, someone Googles your name and among the first things they see is a Wikipedia article about the unwanted notoriety that came upon you completely through malice and happenstance and that perhaps you would give anything to get rid of. And perhaps you say to yourself that with time, some of the sillier websites mentioning you will fade away ... until you realize that Wikipedia is one that will hopefully be eternal, and there you and your face and the harassment and teasing you endured are immortalized, presumably forever, or so we as Wikipedians hope.
- Now, this article is not, by far, the worst example of unwanted, life-destroying publicity through Internet pranking against an otherwise non-notable, private person that I have seen. The Internet publicity, while unwanted at first I am sure, was not positively hateful, and no humiliating personal secrets were exposed, and the subject seems to have dealt with it in some form of reasonably adaptive way and may even be trying to capitalize on it. So keeping this article would not be as grotesque as would have been keeping some of the other articles I discussed in my comments that I linked to above. But we need to raise awareness of this entire suite of issues, and people need to hesitate before responding "enough Google hits, keep" on articles such as this one. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Coolgamer 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thanks for the input, Newyorkbrad. I'd hate to see some embarassing photos of myself put into an otherwise-respectable encyclopedia. In any case, Being an Internet meme is really not the same as real noteriety. It could indeed be damaging to him, despite his attempts to make the best of it. Bahamut0013 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from initial closing administrator: please see this. I have overturned my closure and relisted on the basis of substantial new information and arguments. Fellow administrators, can I please suggest that this run a bit longer before closing, to let the debate which was shut down too early by myself complete itself, before making a decision. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Newyorkbrad and the golden rule--Docg 12:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not aviolation of WP:BLP. The article passes WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Having read DeLarge's commenst on Daniel Bryant's talk page I have to agree with Delarge's position. While Newyorkbrad's comments here are persuassive they aren't addressing the article. Also I respectfully disagree with Alton's nomination - while the "Xiao Pang phenomenon" was reprehensible this article meets the above policy requirements. The grounds for deletion don't include morally reprehensible events or phenomena to remove this on grounds such as Doc glasgow's Ethic of reciprocity (which isn't a policy) or Bahamut0013's points about seeing embaressing photos of oneself on the 'net borders on censorship. Yes the article should be cut down, yes it should be kept neutral, but no it should not be deleted--Cailil talk 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethics aren't policy? Yes, fair point. But sometimes a little humanity can make the world a better place. Knowledge is good - but there are other goods and there is some information that the world can live without. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Every powerful media needs to have a little social responsibility.--Docg 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect per Newyorkbrad and Doc glasgow. I worry about Wikipedia's role in prolonging the notoriety of people who become the butt of jokes, rather than simply documenting it. If we revisit this in 10 years and people still care about who this person is, I'll be happy to change my opinion. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 16:11, 12 May 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.