Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Tsai


 * 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. If we count noses, there are more keeps than deletes, by one. (discounting Monkey80, a now indef blocked sock of the article creator), or even steven if we include the nominator. But AfD is not about nose counting, it is about strength of argument. While the subject does have a Barron's mention, and a fairly lengthy one, as carried on the subject's own website, (Barrons itself only has the opening para for free, but it's a match with the subject's copy so it's highly likely to be as the site has it) it's a bit of a puff piece, and Barrons is a daily that needs fodder every day. The NY Sun article is also somewhat puffy. I find it odd that his father's article seems to be a redlink. HIS notability seems pretty clear, CEO of major corporation, etc. But his son? Not so much. 40M in assets under management is not a whole lot, really. It's too bad that the father didn't have an article, we could propose merging this into his... but this article? It smacks of a promotional piece, and I'm not seeing the notability. Note that this search on Google gives 636 ghits, (which is hardly "all over the place" as Monkey80 says) and I have 26000 last I checked... and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination notable. So that's a bust. The delete arguments to me outweigh the keeps, there clearly is no consensus to keep. With a non notable or marginally notable BLP, unless the outcome is clearly "keep" we ought to be deleting, not keeping. Therefore, delete. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Tsai

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unremarkable businessman, article created by subject, speedy delete tag already removed by author. Paste (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * *Speedy delete - will retag and caution creator. – ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination now that speedy has been declined – ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious conflict of interest problems aside, the article cites some fairly extensive and reliable sources, including this one: from the New York Sun, and  published by Barron's. He meets notability guidelines as spelled out in WP:BIO... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As Jayron32 mentioned, the article cites RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned a number of times, the article references a number of reliable sources and the name in question actually pops up all over Google and in important business and art publications. Monkey80 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is also worth mentioning that the article does not seem to fall under any of Wikipedia's deletion criteria. Monkey80 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Duplicate !vote by Monkey80 struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment is actually by a suspected sockpuppet of User:Ctsai1 (see Suspected sock puppets/Ctsai1) the creator and subject of the article. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I wish I could assume good faith here but an anon user has removed the Afd notice and new user Monkey80's only edits are to this Afd debate, the article itself and its talk page. Sockpuppet anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is now being repeatedly added to by a single anonymous editor User:68.173.46.204 who is in all liklihood the subject. This project is being made a fool of by this currently banned editor/subject. As to notability one can find third party sources about just any CEO/MD of a medium to large company, it does not make the subject notable. Paste (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has enough references to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayron32 and others, I see zero problem with this article and there are more than ample third party sources published about this person. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.