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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Guagua (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)

I know this one is going to be controversial, but...

This person's only significance is that his father is embroiled in a scandal. All of the stories about him are in the context of his father, and the sources reflect on this. Notability is not inherited. The parts that deal with Bo Xilai should be merged into that article, since Bo Guagua's lifestyle is part of Bo Xilai's not Bo Guagua's scandal. The rest should be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / Keep : the essential criteria to establish the notability of a person, per WP:BIO, is is that "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Bo Guagua is the primary subject of numerous feature and investigative articles, published in venues like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, the Daily Telegraph, etc. Several articles predated the recent scandal around his father (more of this nature could be found). The other relevant issue from WP:BIO is this caveat: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)." Significant coverage can be found on Guagua—not for what his father has done, but for his own actions. This is my reading of the policy, at least. Homunculus (duihua) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to clearly pass notability. Not a comment on the edifyingness of topic. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited. The interest in the subject is solely the result of interest in his parents. Assertions as to the significance of the subject, and the sources supposedly evidencing this, are about princelings in general, and as such Bo Guagua enjoys mentions which could be considered 'trivial'.

  The article is more importantly a large possible WP:BLP violation, and may violate WP:ATTACK: the material contained herein, even where sourced, is heavily reliant on gossip and speculation, and all that isn;t isn't of biographical merit; most of it is negative, has been denied. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notoriety is not inherited. The grounds for deletion are clearly set out in the nomination and by Ohconfucius, and even if everything that were said about him were true it would not provide a basis for a BLP. --AJHingston (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I just edited the page a bit to 1) include Bo's recent response to some of the rumors about him, and 2) More clearly note some of his own claims to notability, independent of his family. I'll also reiterate, in case it was missed, that Bo had notability well before scandal befell his father, though attention has certainly escalated to a new level since March of this year. As to suggestions that there are BLP issues here, I believe that the information contained in the article is conservative and well sourced, but if there are concerns about factual misrepresentations, those should be presented as soon as possible on the talk page irrespective of the outcome of this discussion.Homunculus (duihua) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not seeing it. He's always discussed within the context of his father. Just look at the "Significance" section. His driving of the car compared to his father's campaign, etc.. I'm sorry, but I still think this needs to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument is intriguing. What about Michelle Obama (husband). Or James Murdoch (Daddy). There are many people legitimately famous through their close associations/relations with other people, and then they do things that attract independent coverage, just as in the case of Mrs. Obama and Mr. Murdoch, and Bo Guagua. That the page not be turned into an attack page goes without saying. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except in your case, Michelle Obama is inherently notable, being a First Lady of the US, as well as holding positions in the University of Chicago, while James Murdoch is notable in his own right as a News Corp executive embroiled in the recent phone hacking scandal. Bo Guagua's sole claim to notability is being the son of Bo Xilai, and as such, he is more comparable to the children of Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum.--PCPP (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are perhaps not the best examples. At the same time, Guagua has been of great interest to Chinese-language media, even if not for the best reasons. I would say in terms of WP:GNG, given the wide variety of English and Chinese language media that have covered him, it is clear that he passes the notability threshold. Colipon+(Talk) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is impossible to glean the truth from the current media reportage. Bo's family has not been given a chance to express their views, but more importantly, even the western media's sources of information tend to come from communist party insiders - the agency that is arguably prejudiced in this case. So i would suggest that an entry on Bo Guagua is only suitable when the facts are fully determined. Given the new york times' recent report that partially substantiates Bo Guagua's statement, and the WSJ's weak substantiation of the ferrari account, there indeed seems to be a lot of questions left unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitedpublisher (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's most disconcerting about this article is that it is based almost entirely on unfounded rumours mostly from people who are either envious of his lifestyle or family connections or people interested in spinning the downfall of Bo Xilai in some manner. Bo Guagua is a complete innocent in this manner and yet has been hauled through the mud by Western media for what his parents have allegedly done. This type of coverage is particularly despicable in rags like The Mail and to a lesser extent The Telegraph that have nonetheless chosen to compete their "investigation" to bring new "facts" to light due to Bo Xilai's downfall and the unprecedented interest therein. If he wasn't the son of Bo Xilai, there would be none of this, and there would be absolutely no question of his lack notability. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, the article may well also violate WP:NOT#NEWS – "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 21:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are unfounded rumors on the page, please specify what they are on the talk page. We wouldn't want unsourced or poorly sourced information to remain in the article either way. This article is far more conservative (to the point of being rather generous) that what is found in much of the media coverage.Homunculus (duihua) 22:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree with you about the conservatism, but that doesn't make it any less problematic as an encyclopaedia entry. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (leaning towards Keep): I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, the deletionists make a very convincing argument that much of the content is bsaed on tabloids, speculation, and Guagua is only notable by virtue of his father's position. But this alone makes him about as notable as Eric Trump. On the other hand, he has been the darling of Chinese-language media attention long before the ouster of his father. Thus the argument that Bo Guagua is getting attention only in the last two months ignores the plethora of Chinese-language sources that have written 'features' about Guagua (and Guagua alone) long before March 2012. Mind you, a lot of this stuff is still fodder for tabloids, like his attending masquerade-style parties at Oxford, and his brief relationship with Chen Yun's granddaughter Chen Xiaodan. But by virtue of this, effectively he became an internet meme - passed around much like Grass Mud Horse and Very erotic very violent, with discussions in the Chinese blogosphere that have compared him to the Li Gang incident. Moreover, in 2009, Guagua accepted an interview with Hong Kong-based Phoenix Television, where the name "Bo Xilai" was not mentioned whatsoever - meaning that the media had developed an independent interest in his character, achievements, etc.. (ironically the interview was about how Guagua stepped out of his father's shadow) Moreover, while I do not have the sources immediately available to prove this, I believe that Guagua is perhaps the best representation of hongsandai ("Red third generation") and is a quintessential reflection of the social issues associated with that class. Since no other articles exist about this group, it may be worth it to keep this article if only for human interest purposes alone.

  My foremost concern in maintaining this article, however, is that it is being turned into an attack page, albeit conservatively written, and therefore serves little encylopedic value. If we plan to retain this page we need to do some serious work on making it balanced, and scoping Chinese-language sources as well as English-language ones to make it more complete, and expand upon his significance. Colipon+(Talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of politics-related deletion discussions. —--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOTE and WP:BLP1E. Simple put, Bo Guagua has not even graduated from college to achieve something making him notable outside of parental connections. As such, this page better serve as a redirect similar to how Malia and Sasha Obama's articles redirect to Family of Barack Obama--PCPP (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The Sound and the Fury. He's way past the point of WP:BLP1E. A google news search shows almost daily coverage on him across major new media all over the world. There are many articles mainly about him, not his father. Notability clearly established. --Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or Merge - Bo Guagua appears to satisfy notability requirements per articles such as this [1], but a valid concern here is possible BLP violations due to the secrecy and circumstances of Bo Xilai's affair. Perhaps we could create an article called Family of Bo Xilai instead, and add info from this article as well as other Bo relatives, as noted here [2], one of his uncles resigned from an executive position because of the affair.--AstrixZero (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  04:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. The subject has been mentioned in hundreds of GNews stories. The red Ferrari story is a tale that, "has taken on mythic proportions in China", according to The New York Times. The Wall Street Journal put it on their front page back in November, months before scandals about his parents broke. This is big league Chinese politics, not celebrities misbehaving. The fact the Chinese government is attempting to censor this story makes it important for Wiki to stress its commitment to the free flow of information.[3] Kauffner (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has been the subject of press interest for years (contrary to the proposer, his fame does not rest on his father's scandal). His notability may initially have derived from his father but with sufficient press coverage, cultural importance, and independent deeds, a famous child does become notable (a western comparison might be Mark Thatcher). A detailed and well sourced article that indicates his importance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although a great amount of his notoriety may be due to his father, the articles cited are more than enough to show that he has become notable in his own right. Ducknish (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zanhe and Ducknish. Otebig (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harvard Alumnus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.39.79 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep disregarding some of the more absurd arguments, he is notable in his own right. That his father is also notable, and that part of his notability is derived from the relationship is irrelevant to the fact that there are sufficient discussions about him specifically.

DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 13 May 2012 (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.