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 DELETE - there is a clear consensus on the two previous deletion discussions and the previous deletion reviews for this article to be deleted. This procedural nomination is making a mockery of the whole process - it seems multiple deletion reviews and multiple deletion discussions can be used to overrule consensus by attrition - well not on this one. Nick 10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun[edit]

Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural nomination per this DRV. Viridae^Talk 02:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with some minor cleanup, refocusing on the phenomenon rather than the kid. (just getting my comment in before this one can get closed prematurely) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an internet meme that has no historical impact. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launching a website and thousands of parodies sounds like a significant impact. Historical importance is not a criteria for inclusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable? Check. Verifiable? Check. Fair and balanced? Check. Problematic? Nope. It's fine, a discussion as to whether to move this to something about the meme or some cleanup may be in order, but there is no reason to remove this article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This one has several verifiable sources, and is notable. It could use some cleanup, but per Badlydrawnjeff and Night Gyr, this one has no reason to be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the content-focused comments at the first deletion review should not be ignored simply because they happened to be made on that page. Both those in favour of keeping and those in favour of deleting the article raised some new perspectives there. Their comments ought to be considered, or alternatively all of their comments could be copied here, or all of them contacted to give them opportunity to comment here. --bainer (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Responses refactored to talk page.)
• Keep as this search [1] gets plenty of results that are obviously non-trivial. Lack of actual importance is not grounds for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While people keep saying that this is a notable topic, simply repeating that does not make it so. How is this biography notable? Will Qian be remembered in three years from now, never mind in three months. Is this the greatest that this kid can ever aspire to achieve in his life--being the butt of a joke? If he does do something great and important, what role will this incident play in his overall biography? Verifiable? Yes--but then again so is anyone who ever got mentioned in the local rag or appeared on a guest on Oprah or Jerry Springer. So is everyone who won a local pie-eating contest. But that does not make them notable. Danny 03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danny, we use WP:BIO for people and WP:WEB for web memes when discussing notability. You'll notice that the subject meets both. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget that nothing precludes us from moving this article to Little Fatty and refocusing it on the notable internet phenomenon, mentioning the kid only tangentially. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I don't think that would be appropriate. "Little Fatty" is not the name of the internet meme, it's the nickname of the person, so that would still really be an article about the person, and if we're going to have an article about the person, this is the proper name for it to have. Of course, part of the problem here is that there is no other possible name for an article on the meme... but we do already cover the meme at List of Internet phenomena. Mangojuice^talk 04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So move it to the name of the meme, whatever that is. It doesn't mention any name other than 'Little Fatty'. That is what's notable, not some otherwise anonymous Chinese gas station attendant. DarkAudit 06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; there are numerous reliable sources discussing this issue, which distinguishes it from some Internet memes that are unverifiable. The article meets WP:BIO. And to respond to some of the objections brought up previously, WP:BLP doesn't say we can never have anything in an article that might reflect negatively on someone; it says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [...] should be removed immediately". All the facts in this article are indeed sourced. We're not making fun of the kid; we're documenting an observed and well-sourced phenomenon in which other people did. It's no different than discussing any other prominent scandal. If nothing else will do, then, as DeLarge suggested, we could switch to a version that discusses only the meme and has no biographical details and put that at the title Little Fatty. *** Crotalus *** 03:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This easily meets all of our criteria. Besides the sources used in the article, non-trivial coverage all over the world includes Fox News[2], The Age[3], Wiener Zeitung[4], Daily Times[5], Aftenposten[6], Expressen[7], et cetera. Prolog 04:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Images. I don't think there are real BLP issues here. I will complain, however, about depth of coverage. What we have is 4 sources, all of which came out around the same time as each other, and which, if you read them, duplicate each other quite extensively. This is, fundamentally, a human interest story that got some coverage in a couple of places once, and will in all likelihood never be heard from again. Although there are sources on this, that only proves we can possibly have an article on this topic if we want to. But Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, and it is not a summarizing of all secondary sources either. Unlike, for instance, Star Wars kid, there is no actual lawsuit, no promotional efforts, nothing that would establish some kind of reason that there would be permanent interest in this person. That said, we can and do cover everything really relevant about this story elsewhere: in fact, the coverage at List of Internet phenomena#Images pretty much sums up the whole story without going into unnecessary detail. Mangojuice^talk 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly meets WP:BIO. Sure, internet memes may seem insubstantial to some, but when they generate interest in the mainstream media (and in this case, that has happened, though mainly in China), the notability bar is crossed. I beg for no procedural hiccups this time; this is, what, pretty much the same AFD as two times back, with two trips to DRV in between? --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Good god, not again The 15 minutes is over, people. If not for the meme, this would be an anonymous Chinese gas station attendant. If he does something notable beyond the meme, then let there be an article about him referencing that. Until then, Merge with the meme and let this discussion die. DarkAudit 04:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the meme, it was originally under a name that reflected that but got moved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is the primary subject of several secondary source articles from notable, reputable sources, qualifying for WP:WEB. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep article on notable meme. Delete article on not-notable kid. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article covers both the meme and the kid. Changing it to focus only on the meme is an editorial action, not an afd decision. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, focus of a fifteen minute internet fad. Possibly have an article for that fad itself, but no reason to have one for the otherwise non-notable kid as well. Lankiveil 05:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename to meme Meme is notable. He is not, except as the meme. He does not need an article under his name, the meme needs an article under it's name, with the biographical information already here merged with the article on the meme. That will allow focus to be placed back on the meme where it belongs and away from the person who clearly is otherwise not notable enough. DarkAudit 05:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under some title. Notability shown by sources. Maxamegalon2000 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. notable as an Internet phenomenon in China. --Neo-Jay 06:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Summarizing pertinent news reports from reliable sources is perfectly within the scope of the project. ~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are numerous Reliable sources -- major chinese news sources, no less -- with multiple stories showign that the noteiety and coverage extended over multiple years, not "15 minutes of fame" Pleanty of people becoem notable by being caught up in a single incident, somtimes an unfortunate one. Some people have alleged that WP:BLP mandates deletion or renaming or drastic cuttign of thsi articel. Not so. In the first place, BLP propvides that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source" and continually speaks of "has it been published by third-party reliable sources?". All the content in thsi articel is well-sourced to such origins. Secondly BLP speaks of "derogatory" and "contentious material". By setting up his own website to publicize his "internet fame" the subject of this article clearly indicates that he doesn't consider it derogatory or contentious. No BLP concerns apply, as long as the article is kept well-sourced and on-topic, which it currently is. DES ^(talk) 07:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have an opinion either way but I'd certainly like to see this matter settled at some point. Is this the first 'sticky' AfD? Nick mallory 08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing has changed. Show some decency. Daniel 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I honestly can't decide right now. My comment on this matter will be withheld until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 18. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good god people. Do we need articles on every internet phenom? --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite what a lot of people are claiming, the reliable sources make the boy himself the subject of their coverage, although since the meme is his only reason for fame, that's also covered in depth. It's also possible to redirect to Little Fatty, which is the most common English language translation of the meme's name, although my first choice would be to leave it where it is since I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the BLP.

Recommending that this be deleted outright seems to be taking a step away from being a tertiary source and starting to make value judgements about the content of the mass media at large. What constitutes good subject matter for the BBC, Reuters or The Times to cover is best left to their professional journalists and editors to decide, not a bunch of internet volunteers. But even if you disagree, whether it's good or right that some of the biggest and most respected news outlets in the world are giving space to an overweight teenager from Shanghai -- and whether we should be expected to reflect that -- is a discussion for the WP:NOTE/WP:BIO/WP:WEB talk pages, not this AfD. He meets our current and longstanding criteria for inclusion by a country mile, and in my view is not violating WP:BLP either. However, in light of the vehemence of some of those at the previous AfDs and DRVs, I'm going to be bold and edit the article as per a request at my talk page. If people oppose this they can of course revert back to the current version. --DeLarge 09:36, 19 May 2007 (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.