Talk:Christopher Tsai

Neutrality, prior deletion of article and SPAs
This article has numerous SPA editors on it. The creator, just like the creator of the previous article on this person that was DELETED, claims to have come across this man while editing Ai Weiwei and stated that their next article would be on Weiwei. No such article was ever forthcoming and indeed the StevieandPierre account did not even make any edits to Weiwei, after saying they would. It seems a little more than coincidental that a prior editor who had their article deleted made exactly the same points about the subject and then put up almost exactly the same articles and a lot of fluff and puffery in order to coathanger this article onto other people, art collections and even views on collecting art. That seems about as notability creating as his views on cats and dogs.

I believe that the subject himself tried to create an article at one point and it looked like he was blocked. I wonder why the original author did not create articles on other people who live in houses that Weiwei designed or where his plans were used.

What awards has Tsai won? How has he been nationally recognized in his field? (These are both standards by which notability is judged). Having an art collection, having a view on when to invest in art or living in a house designed by someone famous would mean that most of the Beverly Hills phone book could be included in this encyclopedia. It looks like someone has spent quite a bit of time trying to make this look notable. I think some clarification is needed for the article. The man has obviously done a few things but with no national or international recognition it seems very thin indeed. LastoftheMohicans (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Career Section is Pure Puffery and Marketing Piece
I am seeking input here but this entire section deals with his "investment strategies" that are heralded by him in interviews. He refused to say how much the fund he manages put in CrowdTangle and so the entire piece seems to be WP:Coatrack on the back of companies just like the house he built (mid-range by NY standards) and has now sold was an attempt to ride on the back of Ai Weiwei which is a terrible way to ride Zuckerberg and Weiwei. Again, what has this man done that thousands in NYC have not done bigger and better? What awards or honors has he received from his peers of acclaim from the media that does not have to mention his family or Weiwei. The same articles are cited again and again and some are dead or behind paywalls.

If I cannot get answers we need to delete the puffery and then are left with nothing of note that should be deleted and I will nominate for speedy deletion. An article was tried before, it was removed and blocked. This "new" editor claims he did not have anything to do with the last but uses the same Coatrack and same articles and connection to Ai Weiwei and claims to have interest in Weiwei that brought him to Tsai. There are hundreds of people with much stronger connections to Tsai and so the line that this was what brought them here is very dubious and it seems like we may have a paid editor here trying to boost a business. If I am wrong, please correct me. LastoftheMohicans (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Does it really matter how much he invested in Crowdtangle, or any other company for that matter. If you would know a thing or two about how the world of private finance work you would know that most investor are not going around flaunting what they're doing and specifically how much they invested in a specific company for many different reasons. The fact is he is a popular name in finance and he is an interesting individual that has a lot to say for himself, hence he seem to get a lot of interviews and is constantly quoted in the press. Your comments of him riding Zuckerbergs coatails are simply ridicules, are you implying that he knew that Facebook was going to purchase this company? Do you think an established investor would be driven to make a deal to get press? He could have easily taken that money and spent it on getting press by flaunting his wealth or his fund which would have easily gotten him a lot more press.


 * The mere fact that you are so invested in this person has me concerned, you take a strong stance for the page to be deleted and it you seem to know the history and background exactly how this page came about, you even reached out to one of the page editors in the past but your account was created the second I made some edits to the page. If my intuition is not failing me it seems like you have a personal agenda here I don't think this is the right place to air that! Please cease from vandalizing this page Ellengrzowsky (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with LastoftheMohicans. And the "it seems like you have a personal agenda here" argument with dubious grammar is not a useful one - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tags until the matters contained in them have been addressed and a consensus reached. As was stated by David Gerard all of these tags strongly apply and this article reads like a puff piece that reads like advertising material for an investor and his methods of investing. There are some very dubious links that have been posted to make this look like he is linked to some well known people and companies in order for this to look as if there is greater notoriety than there is. I really don't want to address allegations of personal agenda except to say that when investors, or others with services to sell, have pages created then they deserve scrutiny. LastoftheMohicans (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just wrapping up for the night, so I will look into this in greater depth tomorrow, but it seems to me that the solution to such concerns is to expand the article so that we can clean up the tags. Having come upon this article while searching for sources for the section on recent trends in Chinese art, I think notability is met. The subject seems to be a person to whom a fairly diverse number of news sources have turned to for knowledge or expertise in two different areas. bd2412  T 05:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have delved into this subject a bit further, and I am confident that the subject is notable. He has appeared as a commentator on the subjects of his expertise in multiple venues in both print and broadcast media. His publications and appearances have been discussed in a reliable third party source. There is no scandal or criticism that I can find that is being suppressed from appearing in the article. Sometimes articles seem to portray people in a positive light because the facts support such a presentation. I have improved the article somewhat, and I intend to continue working in this direction, but for the time being I have made an administrative call that these tags are not needed. If there are genuine concerns about the subject's notability, these should be addressed by initiation of an AfD. If there are concerns about specific language in the article, alternative wording can be proposed and discussed here. bd2412  T 00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)