Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hu (IIG)


 * 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. Cutting through the noise, this is a BLP1E and its existence is not justified by policy. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

David Hu (IIG)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Absent the coverage on his crime, there is no in-depth coverage about this person. Case of WP:BIO1E.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Can we get some input from some uninvovled editors, please? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: sources are enough for GNG. Wei Yuqi (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, has Bloomberg and Washington Post as sources so there's GNG. Martin Augustyn Zhou (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources meet WP:GNG. BLP1E requires subject to have small role in event, but that is not the case here (see WP:NOTBLP1E).Shubham BaGi (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Policy based input please, hint: there are no grounds for a speedy keep Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally agree with  Onel 5969  TT me--Bexaendos (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: what onel5969 wrote is not true. There is significant coverage from, , on David Hu's work as CIO before 2022 when he was sentenced. Coverage meets WP:GNG. Kwwis (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Those links are all about his scam - it's even obvious from the URLs alone. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read closely, the sources, , give in-depth coverage of Hu's role at IIG, how he provided loans for Central and South American SMEs, using fish and food as collateral. It discusses how Hu advised a Venezuela fund and how Hu made money from a management fee. This is coverage of his work outside the crime. Kwwis (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Completely agree with what others have said above. Also, this was not a single event. Article is backed by reliable sources, meriting WP:GNG and describes David Hu's decade of work experience outside of his prison sentence. Moreover, according to WP:NOTBLP1E, WP:BIO1E, the criteria is that the individual's role in the event is not substantial or well-documented. However, this is the complete opposite here, where David Hu's role in the Ponzi scheme is substantial and backed by reliable sources as mentioned above. Zipperlock (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep According to policy WP:RSP, Washington Post and Bloomberg are reliable sources. Moreover, article cites the US Department of Justice. --Caishikou (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Onel is right on the money here, all coverage is in relation to this one event, and the presence of background information in that coverage doesn't change that. WP:BLP1E doesn't require that somebody have done literally nothing beyond the one event to be non-notable. What it does require is for the subject to have received no coverage beyond that one event. Seeing as how by at least one voters' own admission that background can only be found if you "read carefully" in coverage relating to the Ponzi scheme, that additional coverage isn't there. -fuzzy510 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But that misses the point that David Hu played a large role in the event, so by WP:NOTBLP1E the article should be kept. Zipperlock (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to IIG Capital - BLP1E applies here. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep because yes, BLP1E does indeed apply: BLP1E states that we offer subjects the courtesy of not writing articles about them if they are only known for that event, if they wouldn't otherwise be known, and if the event was minor, their role was minor, or the event was poorly documented. In this case, the event was reasonably substantial, and his role was major, so by BLP1E, the article should be kept. If we delete because people are known for one negative event only, we wouldn't have an article on Elizabeth Holmes either. Elemimele (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Elemimele and others. First WP:NOTBLP1E requires the subject's role to be minor, but here David Hu played a significant role in the event. Second, article sources satisfy WP:GNG. Third, Bloomberg, Washington Post are WP:RSP, and article further cites US government DOJ and SEC. Gan Zuolin (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NOTBLP1E is an essay. WP:BLP1E only says that if those 3 conditions are not met, "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met".  It does NOT say that if all 3 ARE met than the person is notable.  And regardless, all 3 conditions are met.  1.  Absent the event, no significant coverage of the person is available; 2. The scarcity of non-event coverage shows that the person was low-profile; and 3. the event was not significant. Onel 5969  TT me 09:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The third condition says "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" but here the individual's role is substantial and well documented by reliable sources, so the third condition fails. Thus, by WP:BLP1E the article should be kept. Gan Zuolin (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2023 (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.