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 no consensus. No clear consensus has emerged after two relistings. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ting Chen

[edit]

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

I am not seeing how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've met Ting Chen before and he's a lovely fellow and a good Wikipedian—but there aren't multiple, independent reliable sources indicating notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a decent fellow, but not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation: all his notability is derived from being ex-chair there. I don't see an argument against having a redirect in place. —Kusma (t·c) 10:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Most of Ting's notability seems to come from being chair of the Wikimedia Foundation but it seems certainly that his other work and achievements might bring him up over the WP:INHERIT bar. I've tried to search in some of the media databases I have access to and, given his common name, am having trouble searching for things related to this Ting Chen without putting Wikimedia into the search string. I'll be clear. This articles does not establish notability right now but we should try to fix the article before we delete it.

Second, the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Wikipedia that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT by proposing Wikipedia articles for deletion. In this context, I'll give an otherwise borderline article the benefit of the doubt in ways that I might not otherwise in this case.

Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. I have met Chen briefly but I don't believe we have ever spoken and I believe there is no WP:COI. —mako ๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I agree with Mako, there are indications of notability but this is going to take some research since the sources are likely to be in Chinese. Most importantly, this was one of several bad-faith nominations not made based on policy.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like Mr Hill above, I found this because of the other nominations made by "Ego Hunter", but unlike One of Many, I do not feel that this nomination was made in bad faith. The sourcing for the articles nominated is too poor for a BLP, and the sourcing for Ting Chen is especially sparse. If necessary/desired, the article could be userfied as was done for Samuel Jacob Klein just yesterday. Eddymason (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Let's be clear: poor sourcing is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. The impossibility of poor sourcing is a reason to delete. Good faith/bad faith aside, evidence suggests that Ego Hunter (the WP:SPA that made this nomination) ignored WP:BEFORE. The result has been to keep every other article he/she nominated. My sense is that being chairman of a $50m/year non-profit, combined with other activity alluded to in the article, is probably enough (even with WP:INHERIT in mind) and I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt for now. If time shows that the article can't be improved, I'll be happy to change my !vote. —mako ๛ 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 03:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there isn't anything more to say about a subject. This article is doomed to become a permastub, IMO. Notice also that Kat Walsh redirects to the article on the Foundation, and there is probably more on her in the media than on Mr Chen. In fact, comparing the last revision of Ms Walsh's article with Mr Chen's article shows that Ms Walsh's article was a masterpiece when compared with this one. Eddymason (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2014 (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.