The result was redirect to Bilibili. After reviewing a remarkably long discussion, which has spilled out and seen a remarkable amount of bludgeoning, there is pretty clear consensus to redirect. I will also be protecting the article, users interested in recreating it (if referencing quality increases) can go through AFC. The very fact that there are 109 external links and the deletion discussion is now 5x longer than the article indicates that something is up. While Marvin Twen has asked an administrator to review all sources presented, and I have, at the end of the day the closer is assessing consensus, not their own opinion, and consensus here is to redirect. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR. scope_creepTalk 21:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not doing anymore, they are all junk. scope_creepTalk 11:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
very firm about the use of high-quality sources.Likewise, he fails the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended content. ——Serial 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Response[edit]Note this response will be lengthy so it is broken up into parts, but give it some time, and please read through to the end. This is important. Thanks. @Scope creep: I think we are making progress, and I would very much like to end on a consensus to keep, but first we would have a much more productive conversation if you avoid using personally-charged phrases like 'trash', 'junk', 'you man'. As for the double standards, it works like this: you say source A is unreliable for this article, however source A is still being used on another notable CEO's article like Zuckerberg or Gates. If one says a source is unreliable when it is used on this article, but reliable when used on another article, that is double standards. If it is reliable enough to be used there, then it is reliable enough to be used here. As for notability I gave numerous sources and pieces of evidence for this in the above response.
Moreover, he has significant coverage from reputable, independent, non-PR sources such as Bloomberg News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, US Security Exchange Commission, etc. Here are some:
Even then, I can add many more sources to show this person is obviously notable and satisfies WP:GNG
Non-RS. Not a reliable source.
At first, I did not understand where your deep hatred towards this article came from, hatred apparent since you used the words 'junk' and 'trash' in our conversation. But looking at your past history, it seems that you once had an incident with AFD involving an article you wanted to keep so badly. [46] There was an article called Ferdinand Feichtner you wanted to keep so much that you started hurling personal attacks at others [47] and you were even banned for it [48] [49]. Moreover you used an IP sock to evade the ban [50] [51]. This past and your current crusade to delete almost every new article on wikipedia essentially invalidate this Afd nomination. It seems that you really wanted to keep Ferdinand Feichtner in Afd, but because it was deleted, you went on a revenge spree to delete every other new article, to pick on others to give yourself a sense of satisfaction and justice. [52] If your hatred towards this article subject Chen Rui stems from a desire for revenge, then that is extremely unhealthy and forbidden on wikipedia per WP:REVENGE, nevermind you are targeting the wrong person. So my question to you is: do you want to become the same kind of person who deleted Ferdinand Feichtner, an article you really valued and wanted kept, or do you want to move on from that past, admit the notability of the subject, and keep this article. Scope Creep, we can help each other. But if that past continues to haunt you, and you insist on finding every excuse to prolong this debate, then that is counterproductive to the spirit of wikipedia to make it as encyclopedic as possible. Ultimately, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, so even I must admit that I empathize with your frustration when one of your articles was deleted. Hopefully, the same mistake is not repeated. Initially there were 3 sources on this article, so I gave you the benefit of doubt and added 20+ more sources and vastly expanded the content. You said you do not want to review any more sources, and I can understand. I do not think either you or I want to waste anymore time on this debate. This CEO has more than enough notable evidence to merit keeping this article. All I am asking is that you please close this AfD case and keep the article. If you do, it would show how much you have grown and moved on from the past, and you will be even more respected not just by me, but also by the wiki community as a whole. Thank you very much. Marven Twen (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Given this there is a plethora of RS to go off, besides those that Scope creep mentioned. This article merits a strong keep. Also Scope creep, please stop editing and obfuscating my responses. Marven Twen (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. |
[58], [59] [60] [61] [62] [63], [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]
Based on [71], WP:V, other language sources can be used, especially since they supplement the already existing English sources. Chen Rui has articles in Japanese and Chinese already as well. Moreover, he is the leader and CEO of multiple companies. All this put together clearly pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE, meriting a strong keep of this article.Marven Twen (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Three sources:
So these are three such independent reliable sources, but I also want to bring up two sources that colleague Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth. [76]
Also according to [79] [80], Chen Rui won the "Business Model Innovator of the Year” (well-known within China), so according to WP:ANYBIO, this could further help establish reputability.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this. Marven Twen (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Have you read the two sources Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth [84]? I will repeat them here for convenience.
Marven Twen (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Here is also a third source [88] from Bloomberg News, secondary and reliable per [89]. It is already in the article, but I raise it here since it has not been specifically commented on.Marven Twen (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)— Marven Twen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chen Rui, 41...his 24.2 percent stake now worth $1 billion...Chen was born in 1978...Chen studied communication engineering at Chengdu University of Information Technology, and joined ...Kingsoft Corp. after graduating in 2001. Nine years later, he co-founded Cheetah MobileThat this tiny amount of information is spread over about half of the column inches does not change my assessment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Giant Dwarfs, these personal attacks and false accusations against me are not relevant to the Afd. But since you do ask here, I feel somewhat obligated to explain to others: that was just a suggestion based on Giant Dwarf's past editing experience. He only created his account recently and made his first edit yesterday on August 28 [92], around the same time as the ANI report was submitted by User:Scope creep. Moreover Giant-Dwarfs has made similar edits to the ANI and the Chen Rui Afd supporting Scope creep, indicating spa. [93] [94] Also Giant-Dwarfs' recent edit [95] on 197.89.19.112's signature indicate that he is an ip sock of User:197.89.19.112 which is currently blocked for personal attacks [96][97]. Also, these users tend to make many spelling and grammatical mistakes, which is unacceptable by wiki standards. It is likely Giant-Dwarfs is a sock of somebody, even if not Scope creep.
I see no point in continuing this ridiculous side-conversation on this page. I will let others judge based on these above facts. I am only answering once because Giant Dwarfs brought it up in an attempt to cast aspersions on me. But the ANI is a more appropriate place for this off-topic tangent. Marven Twen (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Summary Summary of some points and remaining questions of this Afd conversation
I am going to quote what User:Martinp said as it is quite insightful and relevant to our conversation.
I am sensitive to the fact that cultural bias could get in the way here, so I am happy to change my mind, but only if someone provides 2-3 such sources, and if they are in another language, someone uninvolved verifies they are reliable, independent, and indepth.
Also, I am sensitive to User:Eggishorn’s advice, so I will quote part of the WP:BLUDGEON as I think it is important for all of us.
Never reply to a comment right after you see it. Wait a bit, clear your thoughts, and make sure they are saying what you think they are saying. Often, someone else will reply back and correct an error or offer some insight that is new to you. Give other editors enough time to agree with you.
Also, taking into account WP:REFBOMB and User:Girth Summit’s WP:THREE, I will try to give a few sources at a time.
I gave some time for others to put some thoughts. All I want to do is summarize the current state of some of the sources.
Thus, based on Martinp’s advice, we have at least 1 RS (possibly 2 or more based on other people's responses), and we need at least one more to establish notability.
Here are 3-5 more. I could have put much more, but I deliberately limited the number.
And before a user tries to say they are ‘all this or all that’, could we try to analyze each one at a time rather than assign one cover term to everything (which is hardly ever the case).
If anything, I was hoping an established admin preferably familiar with the Chinese language could make an objective assessment of these sources. Many people here already admit that they cannot read Japanese or Chinese fluently, and moreover Google Translate gives inadequate translations. That is fine, but it is ridiculous to say that a source is unreliable just because it was written in a foreign language.
But I understand that users--nevermind admins--have no obligation to comment. I respect that. I am just saying if one comments, can we please analyze each in detail as that might be more beneficial to the conversation.
I am pretty sure at least one of the sources satisfies all three: independence, sigcov, and reliability. If even then, somebody tries to wantonly dismiss all of these nearing 50+ references for billionaire CEO Chen Rui who has lots of coverage in multiple languages, then all one can conclude--as Martin hinted--is that there is serious WP:BIAS and WP:SBEXT inherent in the Wikipedia Afd process, exacerbated by all the anti-Asian media involving the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Anyways, these systemic biases are things I unfortunately cannot change. The only thing I am able to do is continue showing more evidence of notability and sigcov for Rui. Thanks. I hope somebody understands and keeps this article.
At this point, it is perhaps best for an admin to take leadership and make an authoritative objective assessment of the sources. Thanks. Marven Twen (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Message to the admin who closes this discussion: With the 7 day deadline finally approaching, I think most of us here would agree that there has been extensive debate from multiple parties expressing sundry views. If I may politely ask, even if this debate is not closed as Keep, can it at least be closed as No Consensus?
It is in none of our interests to prolong this debate needlessly as that would only invite further trouble. We all want to get along with our lives and move on, and we do not want our lives to be forestalled by a single dramatic AfD.
It has been a long week. If the debate is closed as 'No Consensus' or Keep and the article stays as is, I myself will take a wiki vacation and not edit anything for a week, perhaps even a month or longer. Thank you very much for your consideration on this. Marven Twen (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)