Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chungliang Al Huang (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Chungliang Al Huang
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject of this article clearly fails WP:BIO. Most of the keep arguments in the previous AFD were based on a simple Google test, which is not an acceptable barometer of notability. Though plenty of Google hits may be found, and you can find his books on Amazon, there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources to verify his biography with (no references section has been added between this AFD and the last in May 07). One reliable source (provided in the last AFD) about his performance at an Oregon music festival does not verify that he is notable within the Taijiquan or Taoist communities, which is his field according to the article. If he has not accomplished anything notable other than authoring some equally non-notable books, and no sources can be found to verify his bio, then Wikipedia should not have an article on him. VanTucky (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Fire Star 火星 02:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 04:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 04:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to have been around since the 70's in hippyish circles, and teaches courses throughout America, most organisations seem to use the same bio as promulgated by his own organisation, however the University of Nevada,Las Vegas amongst others seem to take this bio on face value. This is one of those people whose peak of fame did not co-incide with the rise of the internet. That better sources do not exist on the net does not mean sources do not exist, anyone still remember how to use a micro-fiche machine?KTo288 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The lack of sources is not simply a product of the net. Newspapers such as the Oregonian regularly archive editions and articles from before net publishing on their website. Being around since the 70's, and still not having any significant reliable secondary sources is more indicative of his lack of notability. Simply being around awhile and teaching all across the country does not equal notability. There are thousands of martial arts instructors who have been around some time and taught all over, but still lack notability. Chungliang Al Huang is one of these cases. VanTucky  (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Trawling through Google (and I better be careful with my words here) the conclusion I was coming to was someone who could be a "self promoting charlatan", the sources I've added to the article are the closest I could find to neutral sources, there were multiple institutions that repeated his bio word for word, in addition to martial arts instruction and he is credited with "religous and philisophical" lectures and appears in the transcripts of religous conferences. That he seems to have successfully convinced others of his notability, is notable in itself.KTo288 18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the article, he is not notable for being a New Age charlatan, and saying so would hardly be NPOV. He is supposedly notable as a legitimate instructor of tai chi and Taoism. Reprints by unreliable sources of his PR copy is not indicative of notability. Getting your press release published isn't exactly an indicator of substantial notability. Saying so is arguing around the core issue. VanTucky  (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know, its not really the most diplomatic thing to say, the two bodies he claims membership of the Academia Sinica and the World Academy of Art and Science seem to be legitimate enough, though I cannot find as yet any material linking this individual with these organisations, I'm going through possible versions of his name in Chinese to see if I can dig anything up. KTo288 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Keb25 13:02, 7 September 2007 (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.