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 decker^{talk to me} 18:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hai[edit]

Li Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability unclear, not established. ("show, don't tell.") Page doesn't describe the person, but rather an event, and so fails WP:BLP1E. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails almost every test on the Notability guideline page, but especially fails because "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Quigley (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, a quick google and google news search returns nothing two results, one of which he is mentioned in a large list of names. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Kind of strange that you say "google news search returns nothing". First result when clicking "news" above is a 1998 title story on Li Hai by the Washington Post. The next one is a 1999 story on Chinese dissidents by The Guardian, mentioning Li Hai prominently. And these aren't the only articles covering his story. In my opinion, he passes WP:ANYBIO. --bender235 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea which google news feature you used (perhaps there's a region difference since i'm using the UK version, or something), here's my results. [1] The only two results are from toronto star (where he is one person from a long list of names) and spero news. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the link "news", from the Find sources list above. --bender235 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • And also, see WP:oneevent. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not apply, because he is notable for more than one event. Read the article. --bender235 (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both references talks about his involvement in the 1989 incident and the later investigation he had, which was what he got arrested for. Even the article it self says that, he was only involved in the Tiananmen Square event. What is the other event(s) you are talking about? Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First there was his involvement in the Tiananmen square massacre in 1989, and second his show trial for treason in 1995. He is as notable as any other Chinese dissident on Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you see, the 1995 one was for hooliganism, but he was quickly sentenced to prison in 1996. These two are related. And the 1996 was for the investigation on Tiananmen Square. So they are just one thing. And I quote the Guardian article 'Collecting lists is a dangerous occupation in China. Li Hai spent four years gathering data on more than 800 people punished in the post-Beijing massacre crackdown. In 1995 he was accused of "hooliganism" and put in a detention camp. In 1996 the student, born in 1955, was sentenced to nine years in Beijing's Liangxiang prison for "prying into high-level state secrets'.Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a weird argument. Just because the data he collected, and was sentenced to prison for, was about Tiananmen square prostesters doesn't mean his trial and the Tiananmen prostest were "one event". That's ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • According to WP:ANYBIO:
    >The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
    >The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
    The first one is nil, the second one is disputable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of any notability guideline is "[...] who have received significant press coverage". Which Li Hai did. End of discussion. --bender235 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Li Hai is definitely notable, he is one of the prominent dissidents. He was active in 1989, signed a pro-democracy statement and is currently in arrest. This is reported by The Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times. Waikiki lwt (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong keep. Careful news search reveals enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep multiple RSs and not just one event. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 17 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) 01:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice WP:ADHOM there. I know I might be handsome, but argue the content, not me. For a taste of your own medicine, this edit summary makes you look just as partisan. Now, see how WP:ATTACKs and ad hominem arguments are pointless? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:34, 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) 10:15, 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]

There is no advocacy in the Li Hai article. It is a neutral description of what he did and what happened to him.

And by the way: try to stay away from the paintbox. No need to color this page like a rainbow. --bender235 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Unless you're using Google China, you should get lots of results. Alexius08 (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to 2011, I see you've gotten off the airport shuttle from 2006. There is no Google China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and Trout the nominator. Plenty of third-party coverage of this individual. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:12, 23 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.