Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guolong Li


 * 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. Skomorokh 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Guolong Li

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO, since those sources that are actually reliable (we're citing facebook several times) are about his single controversy. He thus falls foul of WP:BLP1E, and his article has no place on Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Classic BLP1E. Lara  03:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as noted above. BLP1E, insufficient sourcing, etc. Glass  Cobra  03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Redirect to Cambridge University Students' Union. Obviously I'm biased on this, but whilst I can understand you thinking it comes under WP:BLP1E, the article is about someone who has been in the news for separate elections, therefore multiple events.  WikiWebbie (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "news" are internal Cambridge things. The one reliable external source is the Daily Telegraph, which deals exclusively with the homophobia row. The internal Cambridge things were either 1) written by students or 2) gave Li the same coverage as they'd give other candidates, which isn't indicative of notability - it indicates that he ran. In any case those references are neither independent of the source or secondary - cambridge-related sources for cambridge-related things are a no-no when it comes to establishing the notability of a subject. Ironholds (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the article should be changed to cover the story more specifically then? The student newspapers, which are independent of the University, are obliged to give the same amount of coverage to all candidates in the interests of fairness.  WikiWebbie (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think 1) the sources are not enough to cover the individual, because only one is from a reliable source as set out in WP:GNG, and this falls foul of WP:BLP1E and 2) we cannot justify an article on the event, which falls foul of WP:NOT. Changing the article to focus more on the story does nothing to deal with any of these concerns. I would've thought my nomination of the article made it clear - I think the article should be changed to be a redlink. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the president of a students' union wouldn't normally be notable; a candidate for the presidency certainly isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Student newspapers generally don't count as reliable sources for the purposes of notability, and none of the positions he holds or has stood for comes anywhere near WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that his ill-advised comments on gay people made the Telegraph is a claim to notability, but that alone is a clear WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Neville-Smith (talk • contribs)
 * Delete for insufficient sourcing. Rirunmot (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Necrothesp and Rirunmot. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2009 (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.