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. Anyone wanting the deleted content for the purpose of merging can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tian-Yau Conflict

[edit]

This page is little more than a collection of unsubstantiated libelous rumors sourced from Chinese blogs, and is a violation of WP:BLP. It seems to be about some old and obscure academic spat that is best forgotten. R.e.b. (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shing-Tung Yau as it seems to revolve mainly around him and none of the information seems to actually be in the article on him. The editor who nominated didn't seem to consider whether the information could be included elsewhere and jumped right to AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the references are blogs and do not meet WP:BLP standards. Of the others, one at least is now 404, and all but one is in Chinese, hence ~~inappropriate~~ unuseful for the English-language wiki. The nominator would have been entitled to delete the entire contents on sight per BLP, raising an AFD is a reasonable way of salvaging someone from the wreckage. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the content is indeed based on unreliable sources and should thus be deleted. I don't think that the remainder is enough to fill an article. However, the central accusation by Yau is sourced reliably (the Xinhua / China View article and the interview on the Zhejiang University website). Wikipedia:Verifiability seems rather clear that Chinese-language sources are permitted. I'm not sure whether this information should be excised completely from Wikipedia. Perhaps one or two sentences in the articles of Tian and Yau appropriate. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." This applies directly: praise/criticism of living people being intrinsically open to challenge. I withdraw inappropriate in favour of unuseful. But I believe my point stands. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merging whatever is sourcable into Manifold Destiny or the article on Yau. This should require either mention in the New Yorker article or other third-party publications, not blog pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit (massively). Most of the details about the spat from all those blog entries probably do no meet the notability criteria WP:N, and go against the policy on reliable sources WP:REF. Even if in this case they are primary sources (of support or condemnation), they may well be considered libelous against one or the other side, so they fall under WP:BLP#Sources. Keep only the parts supported by mainstream media references and delete the rest, which is to say most of it. They way the article is written now is makes it pretty much unreadable. There are other articles on Wikipedia about academic dishonesty controversies, so I don't think this one should simply vanish if it's notable enough, but covering all the minutiae makes it look like court transcript. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not versed in what constitutes a reliable Chinese source, but if only the Xinhua reference remains after the edits, theb the article becomes an just an opinion of Shing-Tung Yau, so it should be merged with his bio. VasileGaburici (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 3 September 2008 (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.