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. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Zhe[edit]

Liu Zhe (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)

Article about a person who's only claim to fame is serving as commanding officer of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. All three of the Chinese language sources in the article (checked through Google Translate) seem to be nothing more than official press releases about him being appointed CO of that carrier, and his rank, Navy Captain (which is equal to a colonel), is below the level that is listed as minimum for presumed notability at WikiProject Military history. He also fails all other criteria on that page. AFAIK serving as commanding officer of an aircraft carrier or other capital ship in the navies of other countries doesn't automatically make someone notable, so I can't see why being CO of the Chinese carrier should be more notable than being CO of any other carrier. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: he's apparently a rear admiral, but being a rear admiral doing a job that is normally done by a Navy Captain doesn't IMHO make him any more notable than Captains doing the same job... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The Liaoning carries a special significance in the Chinese psyche because it is the first (and currently one of two operational) aircraft carrier of the Chinese navy - thus its commanding officers get a lot of press coverage on Chinese-language media, which, imo, does in fact make that person notable enough for inclusion. I'd put his standing roughly at the level of Nie Haisheng, one of the first Chinese men in space who was also "just" a colonel prior to his space flight, then promoted to Major General. Colipon+(Talk) 22:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "A job that's normally done by a Navy Captain"

So who commands the carrier groups of all the other Chinese carriers? How long has this precedent been established? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Andy Dingley: I of course meant internationally, since the Lianoning is the only operational carrier that China has. See this page for an international example: as you can see there the USS Nimitz, a much larger carrier than the Liaoning, is commanded by a Navy Captain. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you've totally failed to appreciate both points. Please note the difference between "carrier" and "carrier group". Although the commander of a carrier would be of captain rank (albeit such a senior captain to command a Nimitz that they'd probably be WP:N), the commander of the tactical group centred on that carrier is a separate role, of admiral rank, a rear admiral at the very least (and implicitly WP:N). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:. I know, but that's not what the article says his job is ("... serving as the captain of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning"). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rear admiral is a flag rank, and thus by very long-established consensus through editing, repeated AfDs, and as codified at WP:SOLDIER #1, he is established to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER is an essay, as clearly stated at the top of that page, i.e. "the personal opinion of one or more editors", not a policy or even a guideline. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY. It reflects almost ten years of editing WP:CONSENSUS. I could instead spell out "it is the consensus through editing and repeated (as in, almost every) AfD of an officier of general or flag rank that general and flag officers are notable" - oh, one moment; I did. Now, according to that part of ATA, "by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy" - so, in what way is Admiral Liu Zhe different from every other admiral that makes him not notable when they are? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant text into the article, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning; otherwise, not seeing notability to keep for a stand alone article; regardless of his rank. His name can be a re-direct. Kierzek (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • His rank establishes his notability. Full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that every single one of the many thousands of one to four star generals/admirals in the world (there's currently one general/admiral per ~1,400 uniformed personnel in the US Armed Forces, or ~900 generals/admirals out of ~1.25M, and many other countries have a much higher percentage than that...), regardless of what job they're doing, is automatically notable enough to have a stand-alone article? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument that general-ranked officers are automatically notable has, from memory, not been sustained in some previous deletion discussions. In addition to Tom's comment, I'd note that the Australian Defence Force's most recent annual report states that the ADF currently has 188 one star or higher-ranked officers. Very few of these officers would meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's exactly what we're suggesting! Just like the umpteen thousand members of national and state legislatures are notable per WP:POLITICIAN! And yes, this argument has been sustained in almost every AfD in which it has been used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Including flag officers per WP:SOLDIER works and has for some time. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SOLDIER, and because he's well known in China for being the commander of the country's only aircraft carrier in service (the second carrier has been launched but not yet commissioned). -Zanhe (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Users:Zanhe & Colipon and WP:GNG. The usual discussion over general/flag ranked officers focuses on combat or other significant commands; personally I do not think an unremarkable BG/Rear Admiral Lower Half in service jobs or admin is notable. But this officer is commanding China's first carrier - which makes him notable, and should meet GNG if we include Mandarin press mentions. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Note that in English he is referred to as Senior colonel - however this is flag rank (equivalent more or less to Brigadier). Some sources - [1] [2].Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's interesting to see that everyone who has !voted "keep" here seems to feel that an essay on WikiProject:Military History (claiming that it says that all one to four star generals/admirals, past and present, around the world, no matter what their job is, are notable enough to have a stand-alone article) carries more weight than a Wikipedia guideline (WP:N; since the subject fails WP:GNG, unless someone proficient in Chinese can come up with something better than the pressreleases in the article...). Especially since the essay in question is on a project about military history, refers to people in the past tense (was awarded, held a rank, served as, etc), and makes no mention whatsoever about it also applying to modern day military "civil servants", i.e. one star generals/admirals who have held no higher offices and have no meritorius service in wars to list in their CVs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ONLYESSAY, WP:CONSENSUS, and with regard to "military history" and "past tense", WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a flag officer per WP:SOLDIER, which although only an essay is a generally accepted notability standard for the writers of military biographical articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2017 (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.