Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun (2nd nomination)
- 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. --bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qian Zhijun
The only reason for this nomination is that it is supposedly necessary for procedural reasons, since there has supposedly been less than the necessary 5 days discussion. In fact there were 7 days, 22 hours and 56 minutes of discussion on the first AfD, and another 5 days, 11 hours and 21 minutes at the DRV debate. That's a total of 13 days, 10 hours and 17 minutes of discussion (or 2.685694 times the "regular" amount).
The first AfD was closed at one point by Daniel; but only for 25 minutes and 6 1/2 days after the debate began anyway - well after the standard 5 day period. It was again closed by Drini, this time 7 1/2 days after beginning, which lasted 23 minutes.
In all of these piles of discussion the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion, mustering both weight of policy and weight of numbers.
--bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]It now seems necessary to expound this a little more for people who haven't understood what has happened so far. Among all of the discussion of the content of the article which occurred in the first AfD and at DRV, there were essentially only two arguments raised:
- the article should be kept, because it has multiple sources, and thus meets the threshold criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (people);
- the article should be deleted, because the sources at best are about the meme, and by focusing on the person instead the article is contrary to the tenets of the biographies of living persons policy.
Not only does the latter argument rebut the former, but the weight of numbers across the whole course of the discussion was behind the latter argument.
I feel that confusion has abounded because of the failure of some people to appreciate the distinction between the person and the meme. There is agreement from most of the people in favour of deletion that the meme may be notable. However the issue in question is the article about the person, and that should not be lost sight of.
The previous AfD on this "internet meme"-star degenerated after several out-of-process closures. DRV overturned that mess. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for full consideration. Xoloz 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD will run for five days. Early closures will be reverted,???? Says who, and on what authority? We don't do self-appointed dictators here.--Docg 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying I will revert them. My authority is the "best interests of Wikipedia." We need a definitive result here.
- Please stop making these ridiculous procedural nominations, and delete this unencyclopedic abortion. This is absolutely disgraceful. --Tony Sidaway 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop wrongly suggesting fair discussion is a disgrace to anyone. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying anything about the discussion. I'm commenting on the mindless proceduralism that has prevented this disgraceful mess being deleted. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - bringing the encyclopedia into disrepute. My reasons have been given elsewhere in a full debate. This one is quite superfluous, --Docg 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the existence of this debate is a triumph of process over sense. Leaving aside that Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a Xolozocracy, this subject is as blatantly unencyclopaedic as it gets, plus an egregious violation of WP:BLP, plus it's an open begging letter to trolls to come and help us have some more low drama we don't need. WP:NOT tabloid journalism. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and note that if anyone reverts and undeletes any early close of this, they will be desysopped if I have to pursue it to the depths of hell. Xoloz has absolutely no authority to order anyone to act in any way whatsoever. I also find the text "after several out-of-process closures", insulting, as that implies my initial close was out-of-process, which it most certainly fucking wasn't. Daniel 12:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This relisting is process for the sake of process. The article aims to poke fun at a personal of highly marginal notability. Weak appeals to Wikipedia is not censored do not trump our overriding obligation to living people, or the need for Wikipedia to try and be an encyclopedia of some repute. This is taking "sum of human knowledge" to absurdity. We should not cover this story - Wikipedia will be a better encyclopia without this "article". WjBscribe 12:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This should have been speedied and remained deleted. To relist this on an AFD is bad judgement at the very least. Again we have an flashpan internet phenomenenon suddenly becoming noteworthy. I hadn't heard of this kid until today and nobody will remember him tomorrow unless he does something truly interesting. Cary Bass demandez 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per CSD A7, non notable bio. This is a joke right. This guy is famous (and I'm certainly using the word loosely) because his picture was superimposed onto the bodies of celebrities. There has to be more to it than that, right? How in the blue hell does this even come close to meeting BLP? This did not deserve a second run at AfD. By all means delete and salt. This trash should not be recreated. Uh-oh, the AfD is beginning to look very snowy. --Cyrus Andiron 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Meets every possible measure for inclusion, and does not violate any sort of BLP issue. There is no reason for deletion, and there's plenty of reason to believe, given the wealth of sources, that his notability is far from "marginal." --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 18 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.