Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry C.K. Liu


 * 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 JERRY talk contribs 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Henry C.K. Liu

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A newspaper columnist for Asia Times Online who fails to meet WP:BIO. Another journalist by the same name was assassinated in 1984; this is not him. The subject of this article is still alive. By the way, is there a deletion sorting list that journalists should go into? Thanks and cheers, cab (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * mostly gives you sources about the assassinated journalist or the engineer by the same name
 * gives you lots of articles by him, and a few minor quotations, but none about him. 90% of GHits disappear by subtracting out the phrase "By Henry C.K. Liu"
 * gives very few hits; subtracting out bylines leaves you with only 130 GHits ; the two most prominent sources (Voice of America and Xinhua ) are just brief quotes.
 * The claim that he invented the term dollar hegemony is easily falsified by a Google books search which shows numerous hits using the term "dollar hegemony" in relation to the dollar's role as an international reserve currency from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s
 * No, I don't think there's any deletion sorting lists that fit. the wub "?!"  12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't find a deletion sorting list for either journalism or journalists, but I've added this to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors. Anyway, I've read Liu's articles before, and his website hosts a big collection of writings.  Has anything he authored become notable?  And if so, does that extend notability to him?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Two relevant policies would be:
 * WP:BIO's "creative professionals" section, which says that someone who "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is notable
 * WP:PROF, which say that a person "known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies" is notable
 * But I don't see that his work qualifies him for either one. He claims to have come up with the "dollar hegemony" concept, but that's hardly the subject of non-trivial reviews, just some scattered quotes, and anyway, Talk:Dollar hegemony pretty much demolishes the idea that he came up with this concept in the first place. cab (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - He's a major columnist of that said newspaper, chairman of his own investment company and former professor. That article has been there for more than 2 years, plus I'm sure many people would want to read about him. Humortueio (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A mix of random unverifiable factoids from users' personal knowledge, plus parroting of what a subject says about himself in his own writings, does not belong on Wikipedia. The fact that it's been here for two years means that we've been violating policy for two years, not that it should stay and keep violating policy for even longer. Per WP:SELFPUB (part of WP:BLP): "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if ... the article is not based primarily on such sources." There are no secondary sources about this man or his work, so Wikipedia cannot and should not be the place for people to read about him. cab (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per cab. --Crusio (talk) 07:40, 14 January 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.