Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Yi-hsiu


 * 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. Whilst I note a number of extremely lengthy contributions to the discussion, I must look for consensus of users rather than quantity of writing, and I find that that consensus favours deletion. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Lee Yi-hsiu

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

There is a prod war on this article. It has been deleted from the zh Wikipedia as being non-notable. Prod war combatant has stated:


 * "First, it's a biography of a living person with no significant coverage, and it is poorly written and lacks sufficient information and reliable sources for an independent biography. Secondly, he is a person who is relatively unknown in Taiwan and the World. If this page suits as a significant notability, then every YouTuber in Taiwan with more than 223000 subscribers or more than 22.7million views can get an independent English Wiki page. Wiki should increase scrutiny for a YouTuber fan page because its existence can be easily used as self-promotion, which is something Wiki is not. This point is widely supported by the Chinese wiki community, which agrees youtube is not a reliable source for notability in the case of Lee. Moreover, the subject of this page intentionally falsely interpreted Wikipedia's notability policy and deletion made by the Mandarin wiki community as a clickbait for his own YouTube video [1]. Such conduct clearly violates the "Wiki is not" policy. Thirdly, the claimed radio personality on this page is poorly referenced([2]), one cannot find Lee Yi-hsiu in the cited site, and it shouldn't be taken as evidence for notability.


 * According to the edit history of this page, user Cunard who had deleted deletion several times had not provided any valid evidence or reasonably improved edits against the mentioned notability questions.


 * The most important of all is that the Mandarin Wikipedia community had already made a collective conclusion to delete the wiki page of 李易修 Lee Yi-hsiu in 2022/01/11.([3]) The reasonable AfD discussion was made by the source community, thus should suit all languages and eliminate all wiki pages of 李易修 Lee Yi-hsiu." Fails WP:SIGCOV   scope_creep Talk  15:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Notability (people) says: People are presumed if they have received significant coverage in   that are,  of each other, and.  Sources    The article notes from Google Translate: "Very Han Kuo-yu Internet celebrity history brother has had a very tense relationship with his father since he was a child. The mother is a gentle cushion between the father and son. The day when the 2020 presidential election was voted was the day when Brother History's wife gave birth by caesarean section. ... Brother History started a live broadcast on YouTube to discuss current affairs and share insights, and the number of channel subscriptions exceeded 100,000. ... Growing up in a dark green family, Brother History's political orientation was originally quite "politically correct", ... His father's political stance is dark green, and his historical brother supports Han Kuo-yu. Different political stances deepen the conflict between father and son."   The article notes from Google Translate: "In this regard, the Han Kuo-yu fan YouTuber "Mr. Taoyuan Sun" recently recommended another Han Kuo-yu fan YouTuber "Kaohsiung History Brother" to challenge Chen Qimai. Unexpectedly, the KMT source confirmed that he had really considered it. According to comprehensive media reports, "History Brother" is a well-known pro-Han Kuo-yu YouTuber, with 130,000 subscribers on YouTube and 35,000 likes on the Facebook fan page "Clarification". The Kuomintang source pointed out that he did consider looking for Brother History, mainly because he was local, young and eloquent. However, at present, the final candidate of the Kuomintang is probably not all the people named on the stage."   The article notes: "According to the analysis of the Han Kuo-yu Internet celebrity "Kaohsiung History Brother", there are three factors that determine the outcome of this election: First, what is the voter turnout rate of those who support Han Kuo-yu? Second, what is the voting rate of people who are dissatisfied with the status quo? Because he is dissatisfied with the status quo, of course he will not vote for Tsai Ing-wen. ... "China Review Press" pointed out that Kaohsiung's history brother, who is regarded as one of the top ten Han Kuo-yu live broadcasters, currently has 113,000 subscribers on his Youtube channel. He adheres to the concept of "supporting Han Kuo-yu but not following Han Kuo-yu". He needs to say what is right, and give advice when he is wrong. He hopes to use his strength to break the black criticism of Han, clarify the black and Han Kuo-yu industry chain that smears, smears, and smears red, and helps Han Clarify all kinds of fake news.   The article notes from Google Translate: "Li Yixiu, born in 1988, a native of Kaohsiung, holds a master's degree from the Department of History, National Taiwan Normal University. In 2019, "Kaohsiung History Brother" operated a live broadcast on YouTube, discussing news topics such as political current affairs, and now has 141,000 subscribers."   The article notes from Google Translate: "The total amount in Douai ranks third, reaching more than 1.62 million yuan. "Kaohsiung History Brother" Li Yixiu, who has a master's degree in history from Taiwan Normal University, currently has 133,000 subscribers to the YT channel. The highest has reached nearly 10,000 people online at the same time. The name of the channel comes from the fact that when he was in the army, he was picked up by the commander to give an analysis of a historical speech. Brother Quanlian gave him the nickname "Brother History"."  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Yi-hsiu, also known as History Bro to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
 * These references you have posted are a new low for you, in bad quality and completly non-notable trash. Not one of these are significant. I've got an MSc, does that make me notable? Consensus for number of Youtube subcribers in 250k at the very least, making that non-notable. Just another ideological keep entry that makes no sense.  scope_creep Talk  23:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject is not notable for having received a master's degree from the Department of History, National Taiwan Normal University. The subject is not notable for the number of YouTube subscribers. The subject is notable as sources have provided significant biographical coverage about him, allowing him to meet Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * These so called reliable news source(mainly from the questionable China Times) and may be reliable in your opinion, but I don't see any significant coverage from it. There is no extend history of personal life, importance, political engagement, controversial events. A political YouTuber's fanpage and a subtle news figure is all this page is about.
 * The discussion process should be long over in January, since the zh Wiki community vote for deletion. The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community. It is nothing personal but a late execution of a past consensus. If you are to claim an independent and notable status for Mr. Lee in the EN community, you should provide more english source instead of poor Chinese journalism from China Times. Dolphinforest (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The AfD discussion from the source community can be seen on the Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/01/11#李易修 page, the equivalent of the English AfD discussion page.
 * The discussion process should be over in January since the Zh Wiki community voted for deletion. The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community.
 * Suppose anyone insists on an independent and notable status for Mr. Lee in the EN Wiki community, ignoring the non-notable status in Zh wiki. In that case, one should provide more English sources instead of poor Chinese journalism, mainly from China Times, a Taiwan media extremely controversial for neutrality and authenticity. Dolphinforest (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 21:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Cunard provided five sources above in support of Keep. Yet, in the translations Cunard copied I see not one single mention of "Lee Yi-hsiu." How can we ascertain that these sources are about the article's subject? They may be about something else, possibly related to but not about Lee Yi-hsiu. Which would render them useless as far as Lee Yi-hsiu's notability is concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They are interviews, bar none, all primary and all trash. Not one of them proves the person is notable. They are completely junk and they are indefensible, in an ideological support for a mediocre youtube streamer with no redeeming features that make them notable.   scope_creep Talk  21:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I admit I missed the alternate spelling ("Li Yixiu"), so our subject is indeed mentioned in the sources Cunard offered. Remains, though, the issue about their worth as supportive of notability. Interviews on their own do not make it (see note 'd' in WP:PRIMARY). -The Gnome (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete The AfD discussion from the source community can be seen on the Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/01/11#李易修 page, the equivalent of the English AfD discussion page.The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community.
 * User Cunard claimed this wiki page independent of Han-Chinese page, yet has failed to provide any English news source, relying entirely on questionable Chinese news sources. The sources he provided had not passed the notability check on Zh wiki.
 * The page of Lee Yi-hsiu is a living biography page, not a historic figure page; if he is notable enough globally, there should be English coverage. However, the current status is that there is zero English coverage on him, and the Chinese wiki community disapproves the overall notability. Dolphinforest (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: There is sufficient independent, non-interview biographical coverage of Lee Yi-hsiu (, also transliterated as Li Yixiu), also known as History Bro to pass Notability (people). The sources I provided are reliable sources. I reviewed Dolphinforest's global contributions and found only four edits, all about this topic. I disagree with Dolphinforest's statement: "The discussion process should be long over in January, since the zh Wiki community vote for deletion. The voice and opinion from the source community on notability should suit all Wiki pages. There is no sufficient reason for it to be non-notable in the source(ZH) community yet notable in the global EN community." Regarding the Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion of the subject's article at zh:维基百科:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/01/11, each language Wikipedia has its own notability criteria. That the subject's article was deleted from the Chinese Wikipedia does not mean that the article should be deleted from the English Wikipedia. I translated all the comments in the Chinese Wikipedia discussion using Google Translate: <ol> <li>Reason for deletion: Refunded from DRV.</li> <li>Opinion: Li Yixiu is reporting on Jiang Jiping's reporter column, and should not be used to prove attention in any way.</li> <li>Leaning keep: The main representative of "Han Kuo-yu fans" in Taiwanese politics[1]. Phoenix TV host [2]. Just to add: YouTube followers are of course not a measure of attention. We should examine the existence of this person in current Taiwanese politics. Li Yixiu and "People from the Cold Country" belong to similar characters. [1]: https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20200622001980-260407?chdtv [2]: http://www.hkcd.com/hkcdweb/content/2022/01/10/content_1317397.html </li> <li>Delete: the host of the first episode of the talk show, not a news channel.</li> <li>Keep: First of all, Youtube has more than 220,000 subscriptions, which is one of the representatives of "Han Kuo-yu fans", which is enough to prove that it has sufficient attention. Secondly, although the content of the entry is not perfect, it does not mean that it needs to be deleted, and it can continue to be edited and improved.</li> <li>Delete: DRV reviews source content, almost all sources are unreliable sources; YouTube subscriptions are not an indicator of attention.</li> <li>Delete: YouTube subscriptions is not an indicator of attention - someone</li> <li>Leaning delete: The number of YouTube subscriptions is not an indicator of attention.</li> <li>Delete: the number of subscriptions is not an indicator of concern, and there are almost no reliable sources.</li> </ol>There is little source analysis in this Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion other than from the editor who wrote the "leaning keep" comment. Like many of the participants in the Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion, I strongly agree that "the number of YouTube subscriptions" does not establish notability. I am not basing my support for retention on that. I am basing my support for retention on the subject's having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Cunard has deliberately missed another argument of mine, which is, "suppose anyone insists on an independent and notable status for Mr. Lee in the EN Wiki community, ignoring the non-notable status in Zh wiki. In that case, one should provide more English sources instead of poor Chinese journalism."
 * The same lists of mandarin news media source he provided did not pass the notability check in the Zh community. I don't see any reason why it would be notable after merely translating it into English. Show us actual English news source(not your own translation) about Lee, or just admit this wiki page is nothing more than a fan page of a mediocre local political YouTuber. Dolphinforest (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More edits on Wikipedia should not make you more or less eligible to reason a fairly support debate. And I don't think insisting on creating pages for non-notable figures on Wikipedia really counts as contribution. Dolphinforest (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Wikipedia deletion discussion had very little source analysis, and different language Wikipedias have different notability guidelines. I therefore am not giving any weight to that discussion in whether to support retention or deletion on the English Wikipedia. The current version of the article is neutrally written. I do not consider it to be a "fan page". Notability says: "'Reliable' means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." The guideline says that reliable sources "in any language" can be used to establish notability. Verifiability says: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance." I said that your account had four contributions to the English Wikipedia that were all about the subject of this article and no other contributions. You called the subject "a mediocre local political YouTuber". The essay Single-purpose account notes: "Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that 'single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.'" Cunard (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cunard, I do not see Dolphinforest violating here any policy or guideline, or even that essay with his contributions so far. Evidently, Dolphinforest holds strong views on the worthiness of the subject under discussion but there is no indication of Dolphinforest "following their own agenda". I believe that we should refrain from casting doubt on the worthiness of other contributions unless we have strong evidence of impartiality or some agenda, and here we do not. Come on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)°
 * I did not say that Dolphinforest has violated any policy or guideline. I did not say that Dolphinforest was "following their own agenda". I said that Dolphinforest is a single-purpose account whose only contributions are regarding deleting this article. Dolphinforest called the subject "a mediocre local political YouTuber". The Cambridge English Dictionary's definition of "mediocre" is "not very good". I do not find it to be appropriate discourse for an AfD participant to call an article subject "mediocre", so I posted the Arbitration Committee's reminder to single-purpose accounts who have a strong view on the topic. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cunard, you responded to Dolphinforest by quoting verbatim the part of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee directive that states "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda</U>." That was an explicit warning. You did not "accuse" but you did explicitly warn Doplhinforest about "following their own agenda." It's as clear as it can get but if you feel you can dispute such abundance of clarity go ahead. That's enough palaver for me. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When a single-purpose account makes unsupported negative statements about a living person like "the subject of this page intentionally falsely interpreted Wikipedia's notability policy and deletion made by the Mandarin wiki community as a clickbait for his own YouTube video" and uses the negative term "mediocre" to share the user's opinion about the subject's performance as a YouTuber, I find it to be well within discretion to quote the Arbitration Committee's reminder. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete since subject lacks notability, per above extensive commentary. Despite the avalanche of proffered links there is very little of cumulative substance in them. And interviews do not cut it. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have posted five sources. Editors supporting deletion have called the sources "interviews, bar none, all primary and all trash" and having "very little of cumulative substance". I strongly disagree with these assertions. In their written statements, editors supporting deletion have not spelled out why these sources are "interviews, bar none" and have "very little of cumulative substance". Beyond the quotes I posted in my first comment, I have not spelled out in detail why I believe these sources show that Lee Yi-hsiu (also known as History Brother) meets Notability (people). The guideline says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." I will provide my analysis for each source below to show that a "combinat[ion]" of these "multiple independent sources" demonstrates notability: <ol><li> is titled "Han Kuo-yu supporter ridiculed for being highly educated and mentally retarded. The generational conflict between History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) and his Green Party Taiwan-supporting father". Noting that there is a "generational conflict" is independent analysis of the subject. The article provides biographical background about the subject by noting that he "starts livestreams on YouTube to discuss current affairs and share insights". The article notes that he has over 100,000 subscribers. The article later notes, "On the stage of Han Kuo-yu's pre-election campaign at Ketagalan Boulevard, the elderly Han fans "Five Tiger Generals" were speakers. History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) was a rare young face among the speakers." This provides independent reporting by noting he was a speaker at the pre-election campaign. This provides independent analysis by noting that the "was a rare young face among the speakers" who were mostly older people. The article says he is 31 years old and is from Kaohsiung. The article notes that he is married and his child was born on the day of the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. The article says that he is a supporter of Han Kuo-yu while his father is a strong Green Party Taiwan supporter. The article provides further analysis, saying, "Removing political factors, History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) is examining the parent-child relationship, the opposition between parents and children in Taiwan that is related to traditional education and the patriarchal structure, and complex social factors linked to power."</li><li> is titled "Han Kuo-yu supporter "Kaohsiung History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu)" challenges Chen Qimai? The KMT has considered". The article notes that the Han Kuo-yu supporter and YouTuber Taoyuan Sun had suggested that Lee Yi-hsiu should run for the 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election to challenge Democratic Progressive Party nominee Chen Chi-mai. The article notes, "Unexpectedly, the KMT source confirmed that the political party had really considered choosing Lee Yi-hsiu." The article further said that "The Kuomintang source pointed out that the party did consider selecting Brother History, mainly because he was local, young and eloquent." The article says that Lee Yi-hsiu is "a well-known pro-Han Kuo-yu YouTuber". Noting that he "well-known" is independent commentary. The article notes that he has 130,000 YouTube subscribers and has 35,000 likes on Facebook. The article notes that Lee Yi-hsiu's baby was born in 2020.</li><li> is titled "Han Kuo-yu supporter and Internet celebrity "Kaohsiung History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu)": 3 factors determine the outcome of the general election". The article's author reviewed Lee Yi-hsiu's YouTube video and his comments to another publication and discusses his thoughts about what would determine the outcome of the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. The article is not an interview because the author did not speak directly to him. The article notes that China Review Press called him "one of the top ten pro-Han Kuo-yu livestreamers". The article notes that he has 113,000 YouTube subscribers.</li><li> is titled "Han Kuo-yu's public welfare comeback and transformation, History Brother (Lee Yi-hsiu) suggests four things". The article provides independent commentary by noting that he is "a YouTuber who often comments on current affairs". The article notes that Lee Yi-hsiu was born in 1988, is a Kaohsiung native, and has a master's degree from National Taiwan Normal University. The article notes that beginning in 2019, he did livestreams on YouTube to discuss current political affairs. The article said he has 141,000 YouTube subscribers. The article interviews Lee Yi-hsiu and discusses his suggestions about Han Kuo-yu's use of YouTube to stage a comeback.</li><li> is titled "How much do the top 10 Han Kuo-yu fans make? A Graph Reveals Amazing Annual Income". The article includes no interview with the subject. The article notes that Lee Yi-hsiu is number three on the list and makes TWD$1.62 million. The article says that he has a master's degree in history from National Taiwan Normal University. The article said that in his livestreams, he reached a peak of 10,000 simultaneous viewers. The article said that his YouTube channel is called "Kaohsiung History Brother" because "when he was in the army, he was selected by the commander to give a historical speech and analysis". The article said that his comrades gave him the nickname "History Brother".</li></ol>Although three out of five of these articles include interviews with the subject (sources 1, 2, and 4), there is enough independent reporting, commentary, and analysis across a "combinat[ion]" of these sources to meet Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have noticed most of the sources Cunard provided about Lee Yi-hsiu are related to the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. Even we kindly assume these questionable news sources are valid, I don't think an active canvasser affiliated to a losing candidate from a past election is still counted as notable two years after the election ends. Dolphinforest (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and that is the crux of it. The claim to notability is nonsense.   scope_creep Talk  20:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Previous arguments for deletion were about how the sources did not discuss the subject in much detail. I explained why the sources did provide significant coverage about the subject and have not received a response countering this analysis. Now, a new argument for deletion is that the sources are related to the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. That election happened on 11 January 2020. The five sources I provided were published on 6 January 2020, 16 February 2020, 17 June 2020, 22 September 2020, and 5 March 2021. The two earliest sources (the 6 January 2020 and 16 February 2020 sources) are directly about Lee Yi-hsiu and the election. The other three sources are not directly about Lee Yi-hsiu and the election. The 17 June 2020 source discusses Lee Yi-hsiu's consideration as a nominee for the 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election on 15 August 2020, the 22 September 2020 source discusses how Lee Yi-hsiu is one of the top Han Kuo-yu supporters who are Internet celebrities, and the 5 March 2021 article provides biographical background as it discusses Lee Yi-hsiu's commentary about how Han Kuo-yu can make a comeback. Even one year after the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election, Lee Yi-hsiu continued to receive significant coverage in reliable sources for his political activity and commentary. This meets Notability, which says, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events." If Lee Yi-hsiu had received coverage in only the 6 January 2020 and 16 February 2020 sources, a strong argument could be made that he received "brief bursts of news coverage" only because the election so is not notable. But since he continued receiving coverage in the months to more than a year after the election, he clearly has received sustained coverage.  Notability says, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."  Cunard (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I only step back to show how absurd it is, even we accept your news source. Your new sources are still worthless.
 * You deliberately ignore the fact that China Times from Want Want China Times Media Group (旺旺中時集團) is a media with notorious manipulating records. Its media exposure relating to Han Kuo-yu is none-neutral and not reliable. A report, "Taiwan primaries highlight fears over China’s political influence", from Financial Times in 2019 had made an investigation on manufacturing notability of that media.
 * "......the media group sent several dozen reporters and editorial managers to the city to help push his campaign. “There is a task force in the editorial department for working on ‘Han Kuo-yu frozen garlic’,” a CTiTV journalist told the Financial Times, using a pun that means getting elected. The Taiwanese government is trying to push back. In March, the media regulator fined CTiTV NT$1m (US$32,000) for violations of broadcasting law, including giving too much air time to stories about Mr Han, which it said violated the principle of fairness and balance."
 * Also noted that Want Want China Times Media Group sued the reporter and the Financial Times for defamation after the release of that report, yet rescinded its lawsuits in 2021. ref
 * Last time I checked, the only media that has a "sustained coverage" on Lee Yi-hsiu after the election is Want Want China Times Media Group. Dolphinforest (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I provided three sources that are not directly about Lee Yi-hsiu and the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. They were published on 17 June 2020, 22 September 2020, and 5 March 2021. Only the 22 September 2020 article is from China Times. From Reliable sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Like many reliable sources, China Times is a biased source. According to the Financial Times article, China Times "sent several dozen reporters and editorial managers to the city to help push [Han Kuo-yu's] campaign" which shows it is biased towards him in extensively covering him in a positive light in news article and speaking positively of him in editorials. The Financial Times article does not say China Times is making false statements about him or his opponents. It is a biased source but it can be used with in-text attribution for controversial statements and can be used alongside other sources to contribute to notability. If it was the only source that covered him after the election, this bias towards covering him would indicate that no media outside biased pro-Han Kuo-yu sources covered him. With coverage in the Liberty Times, a newspaper with a Pan-Green Coalition political alignment that is the opposite of the political alignment of Han Kuo-yu and Lee Yi-hsiu, this is not the case. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny how you deliberately miss the argument again. The Liberty Times report is from the year 2020 relating the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. It's obvious only certain media cares about Han and his fellow canvassers after the election. Dolphinforest (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2020 Taiwanese presidential election took place on 11 January 2020. The Liberty Times article was published over five months later on 17 June 2020. It is not about the presidential election. It is about how the Kuomintang considered selecting Lee Yi-hsiu as the party's nominee for the 2020 Kaohsiung mayoral by-election on 15 August 2020. The Liberty Times is viewed as being more closely aligned with the Pan-Green Coalition (Taiwanese nationalism and Taiwan independence), while Lee Yi-hsiu is viewed as being more closely aligned with the Pan-Blue Coalition (Chinese nationalism and Chinese unification). That the Liberty Times, a newspaper with an opposite political alignment than Lee Yi-hsiu, continued to cover him so longer after the election strongly establishes he has received sustained coverage in an independent source and is notable. Cunard (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The concerns expressed by The Gnome and Dolphinforest over both the reliability and independence of the sources are convincing. With the absence of significant independent coverage in reliable sources this topic fails our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Concerns were raised by Dolphinforest about the independence of the China Times for promoting Han Kuo-yu, whom Lee Yi-hsiu supports. There are three other publications I cited (Next Magazine, Liberty Times, and China Review News) who are reliable sources that provide significant biographical coverage of him and have not promoted Han Kuo-yu. Cunard (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be WP:BLUDGEONing editors. You have made your point, can you leave it alone.   scope_creep Talk  10:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.