Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micree Zhan

Add links
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 keep. The folks that set up camp on the redirect side hopped across the fence to the keep side - as such, there's a clear and strong consensus that this subject is notable. Props to those who jumped in and improved the article (h/t to Zanhe). (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micree Zhan

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Micree Zhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject likely fails WP:GNG. Outside the Forbes article, all other mentions are from the very unreliable walled garden of cross-referencing bitcoin trade journals, which seemingly exist only to reinforce the view that this is a reliable 'industry' (but that's off-topic outside of the serious reliability issue with those sources). Anyway, those other sources are generally rewritten press-releases, so not reliable, and generally not in-depth either. The single Forbes source, outside of being, well, single (GNG requires multiple) is problematic too. The author is a journalism student, and not a proper journalist yet. And anyway, Forbes contributors are little better than blog: "At Forbes, contributors post directly to the live site. Yeah, no editing, no quality check–just click “post” and it goes live." So nope, it's not a quality in-depth coverage, it's effectively is an in-depth brand-name blog coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly a redirect to Bitmain. Has some trivial mentions from Chinese sources (though reliable) and they are mostly related to the company Bitmain or the other co-founder. Lacks independent notability. --94rain Talk 03:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and WP:TROUT for nominator for failing to perform WP:BEFORE. He's a multibillionaire (the 311th richest person in the world according to Bloomberg) and one of the most famous crypto entrepreneurs, with significant in-depth coverage from Forbes, Bloomberg, Yahoo, etc., and even more in Chinese media. (Ironically, the nominator tries to discredit Forbes as a "blog" using an actual personal blog). A Google News search of his Chinese name produces more than 1,000 news articles. -Zanhe (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We literally can't keep an unreferenced WP:BLP. The only reference is to a Forbes contributor blog, i.e. a non-RS - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you consider that Forbes blog a 'reliable source', after the explanation I provided, it's clear we have a problem. Bloomberg Profile is a self-published source ([1]). And the Yahoo coverage fails in-depth, it is about Bitmain, and just mentions him as a founder a few times. It is a decent source for his company notability, but a poor one for him (since it is about the company, not him, doh). If anyone needs a trout, it's you for trying to use low quality sources to promote spammy bios. Such individuals can use Bloomberg for advertising, but not Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big trout for confusing the highly respected Bloomberg Billionaires Index with the Bloomberg Executive Profile which looks like this. The latter may or may not be a paid listing (the Quora link you provided is an utterly unreliable source), but the former is a product researched and published by Bloomberg's journalists in competition with Forbes' billionaire list. And there's no way anyone can pay to get their name listed on either the Bloomberg or Forbes billionaire list. And what's up with your habit of using random internet blogs to attack two of the best known business publishers? It makes your arguments look totally ridiculous. -Zanhe (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bitmain. The only reference is to a Forbes contributor blog, i.e. a non-RS. We have literally no references as yet. The article can be recreated as a standalone when there are actual RSes to use. Until then, a redirect is appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: According to WP:BEFORE, AFD nominators are required to consider all sources available, not just sources currently included in the article. In any case, I've added additional sources and info from Bloomberg and Forbes to the article, which should settle the matter. It's getting late for me, I'll add more sources tomorrow if I have time. -Zanhe (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pumping up the sources a bit, though they're presently just two directory entries and one passing mention for a fact that's really about Bitmain. I do feel we need more than this - you can't just say "there are sources!", we actually need them at least checkably listed. I've removed the contributor blog - that's a completely unacceptable source for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Gerard: The Bloomberg Billionaire Index is far more than a directory listing. If you scroll down the page, there's a detailed biography from his birthday to his dinner with Wu Jihan which led to Bitmain's founding. The Forbes page is also a stand-alone profile with fairly detailed personal information, standard for all Forbes billionaires. Dr.SuMK has added detailed Chinese sources, and I've expanded the article based on them and added more info from Hurun Report and other sources. -Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one on sourcing! - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is based on notability judged by all available sources, not on quality of the article (and the Bloomberg and Forbes billionaire listings are easily found from a Google search). Otherwise we'd automatically delete the millions of substubs on Wikipedia. This should be obvious per WP:BEFORE. -Zanhe (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If both Bloomberg and Forbes billionaire profile pages and Hurun Report ranking as world's #1 crypto billionaire are not sufficient for you, then you're not adhering to WP:BASIC guidelines and making up your own rules. The other sources are just icing on the cake, and a lot more in-depth Chinese sources are available including Fuzhou News (hosted on Sohu) and this article in an industrial journal. They're a bit hard to find because they're buried among literally thousands of articles about Bitmain that also mention Zhan. -Zanhe (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, IMHO those profile pages can be considered as reliable sources but not the sources that can provide objective evidence of notability. Bloomberg/Forbes makes a page for them just because they are the richest people (different from the media that generally report notable people or events). However billionaires are not automatically notable. Significant independent coverage from the media are required. It is not easy to find but there are some including the journal though I did not find before. Keep anyway. --94rain Talk 06:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just added better RS about his success from Chinese major media, as it easily passes GNG. Dr.SuMK (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Striking vote by sockpuppet. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the sources. Analysis (based on Google Translate): 1) [4] provides an overview of his biography in few paragraphs, the first half of the article. Passes in-depth, I guess. Reliable? Possible. Publisher: Sohu, so I guess it might be a seen as a news (re)published by a big(?) online portal. 2) [5] Just mentions him in one paragraph due to his wealth, seems more about the company then him. Fails in-depth 3) Fails in depth. He is mention in passing in a short paragraph together with others who made it into "Hurun Research Institute's 2018 Hurun Block Chain Rich List", a source used for other articles as well. 4) While it is about the company, it does mention the subject in almost every paragraph, so it passes in-depth, I think. But it fails reliability, due to "Huoxing24 is a financial information portal that provides global 24-hour coverage of blockchain news." So it's not a mainstream news, it is a niche trade journal/website, and there's a big problem with bitcoins in this - there's a bunch of self-referencing sites like this which serve to seemingly just promote the idea that this is a big and reliable industry, since news of it are covered on many "news sites". So, overall I see two weak and two bad sources here. Sorry, I am not going to withdraw my nom, I think the subject still fails at GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
your contradict is clearly base on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dr.SuMK (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, so I provide a detailed analysis of the sources and your counter is a personal attack? Good way to impress others, I am sure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Huoxing Finance source as it's superfluous anyway, and added several others, including another Bloomberg article ranking him as the world's 9th richest self-made billionaire under 40. And I suggest that you stop wasting your time trying to dismiss each source as insubstantial. Per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and there are thousands of sources about him, including substantial ones such as the Bloomberg Billionaires Index profile. Altogether they provide a relatively complete picture of his life and achievements. -Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anupamofficial What is your Keep reason? you can explain it! Dr.SuMK (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not can, have to - if you want your vote to be counted. WP:NOTAVOTE, and votes without rationale are not relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 3 June 2019 (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/Micree_Zhan&oldid=1138079932"