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.  Sandstein  20:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Mingze[edit]

Xi Mingze (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)

Not notable as WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing she did (attending this and that school or serving as volunteer in relief efforts) is notable on her own merits. And it's very obvious that this girl just wants to lead a normal life despite famous parents, and China no longer practices monarchy in any sense. Obama's girls also don't get their own pages. Timmyshin (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Mingze meets GNG. Your belief that "this girl just wants to lead a normal life" is not relevant to WP policies regarding notability. As it states in the LA Times article,[1] the Chinese press do not mention her ever and online searches on her name in China are blocked. WP:NOTCENSORED. Additionally, Obama's daughters are minors. All other presidential children have their own articles. [2], [3], [4], [5] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTINHERITED: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."" Timmyshin (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTINHERITED refers only to people who do not meet GNG. GNG does not require anybody to have "achieved" anything on their own, only that they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It does not matter why someone has received coverage, whether it is because their father is president or because they won the Nobel Prize. WP is full of articles on children of heads of state for this reason. See Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (who lived all of two days) along with half the people in Category:Children of national leaders. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good argument but I definitely don't think Patrick Bouvier Kennedy deserves an article, and it seems that it has been nominated for deletion 6 times so I'm not alone. I do think Wikipedia needs to be consistent about celebrity children e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Jackson (actress) has been repeatedly deleted. In the case of Xi Mingze, there's an additional problem of lacking reliable coverage. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean the reverse, presenting hearsay or even worse, made-up stories, about a living person as facts, is what Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, needs. The Daily Mail: "one of her acquaintances, a Chinese writer, told The Mail on Sunday last night" "she is said to be protected by bodyguards". There's not a single verifiable fact. Who is her acquaintance, who were her bodyguards? Don't tell me Chinese secret agents will assassinate the Harvard classmate who informs Daily Mail about Ms. Xi. Out of all the links on the page, the only piece that seems reliable is the New Yorker one because it identify a source as "Kenji Minemura", a Japanese journalist unaffiliated with Harvard. But that article is really an editorial and tells us virtually nothing about her. This photo [6] according to several of the links is allegedly Xi Mingze's facebook/twitter picture, but how do we know that? What's her facebook/twitter accounts? The woman looks nothing like what we know for sure is definitely her a decade ago (released by China's official media) [7]. Ming Pao calls that bull and claims she looks like this [8] now, allegedly taken from her commencement, but somebody has since pointed out Harvard graduation gowns don't look like that. Now Sing Tao Daily is reporting that this woman from Xi Jinping's recent UK trip, behind Peng Liyuan is her: [9]. Clearly this woman also looks nothing like previous "identifications". The point here is we don't know anything about her. We don't know what she looks like, we don't even know her name. We think she is using a pseudonym (New Yorker/Minemura also claims that), as Xi Mingze was the name used when she was very young, but we don't know which name she goes by now, so how do we know anything about her? I think it's all speculation. Surely her secrecy (or China's) is of interest probably more so than her, but do we really need an article to illustrate this (Frankly I am more interested about her father's first wife "Ke Lingling", another of the censored keyword, but somehow she didn't get a page maybe because she didn't come to America?) Timmyshin (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why Patrick Bouvier Kennedy survived six deletions is because he was the subject of persistent coverage by WP:RS. His article keeps getting nominated by certain people who don't know the guidelines and think he can't possibly deserve an article. And media debating about whether or not she is the person in the photo is totally not relevant. In fact it gives her more media coverage. Where in Wikipedia guidelines does it say we must know what someone looks like? And there is no dispute what her name is - Xi Mingze. Has Ke Lingling been the subject of coverage in multiple RS? Apparently not. We don't get to choose who is notable - the RS do that for us. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as non-notable in her own right, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Her biography reads like that any young person, she has done nothing of interest or note. And the sources confirm this; they are not about her but about her parents, or the more general phenomenon of Chinese overseas students, or some other topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People do not have to do anything of interest to have a WP article. If that were the case, 75 percent of the people on reality shows would not have an article. They just have to be the subject of coverage by reliable sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Xi Jinping. Not independently notable.Antigng (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Xi Jinping. Not notable in her own right, but if the situation changes in the future (a la Chelsea Clinton), the article can then be easily resurrected. -Zanhe (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Xi Jinping. The question of whether a subject merits a stand-alone article isn't the same as being notable (i.e. WP:GNG), but additional. That's why merges exist. I don't know if she passes WP:GNG, but there's so little information about her available that a stand-alone article doesn't look like the best way to go. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very persuasive argument raised above by User:Wikimandia. Firstly, it is clear she meets the criteria of WP:GNG. By the way, to the nom, she is not a girl. She is 23. This is a case of WP:GEOBIAS. Patrick Bouvier Kennedy lived two days but has an article in which editors have repeatedly rejected deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for others. Other presidents' kids doesn't really say anything for this one. Many people in Category:Children of national leaders are know for reasons besides being a relative. About 600 in that category, although some might not be in there. It's safe to say most don't have articles (let's say 190 countries x 10 presidencies each x 2 kids is well over 3000, and that's probably a low estimate). A Kennedy kid dying at two days, says his death helped to "spark" some medical interest, not really sure of the significance of that, only part of a sentence on it. Should it be a "Death of..." article? He's most well known for his death, right? Last two AfDs closed as no consensus, earlier ones are keep'd but are 4+ years old, might one day get deleted/redirected... Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rainbow unicorn - Interesting you assume all 190 countries have "Presidents" given the Head of government in the following countries is not a president: India, Australia, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea, Greece, Pakistan, Thailand, Japan, Bangladesh, amongst others. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep GNG, VIP. Vs⁶ ₅⁰⁷ 05:50, 21 November 2015 (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.