Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li-Meng Yan


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ——  Serial  13:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Li-Meng Yan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is the product of a one off news story which has been ignored by mainstream credible journalism, and only cited by non-reputable right wing and conspiracy based news sources. Her testimony as a so called whistleblower has very serious, gaping credibility problems including an outright denial from the University she was working for (which is not based in Wuhan or mainland China) that she ever undertaken such research on "human to human transmission", and dubious claims about being a so called defector. The latter is why verifiable, mainstream media sources have ignored it. There is no proof she has any ties to the Chinese government or has any kind of insider information. As a result, I am nominating this page for deletion on the dual grounds of notability and reputability Antonian Sapphire (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  11:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

i feel like overwhelming public interest should allow it to stay up; however wikipedia should point out she carries no evidence. also, the above poster says that "verifiable, mainstream media sources have ignored it", which is not true. fox news has covered it, and while the network leans right, it is a serious media organization that doesn't purposefully publish fake news. Matayo41 (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matayo41 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep may I remind you that Wikipedia has deemed Fox News (website) a reliable source (WP:FOXNEWS) and so the subject meets WP:GNG. Of course the target of her exposé would deny her claims, that's to be expected. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide whether her claim is factual or not -- we only ought to verify what can be verified outright, including her background and the fact that her story was picked up not only by Fox News but multiple other news sources. --MewMeowth (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong University is not in Mainland China, is a reputable, independent university and is not under political control (yet). Given that the same University had a very active role in determining the course and scale of the original pandemic far beyond the mainland's wishes indicates this is not the type of institution that would pursue a cover-up. The creation of this story is also linked to Steve Bannon, who is known for being a perpetrator of fake and misleading news.-Antonian Sapphire (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If one reads the Mail on Sunday account of her story, she offers no direct evidence to her claims whatsoever. It's all hearsay and speculation. She's not a whistleblower, she doesn't know anything Antonian Sapphire (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not delete. Let her talk, she can have her page and all her claims can be called out to what it is just claims till she is able to showcase herself. Till then deleting won’t do anything except to silence a potential whistlblower (if the information she shares turns out to be true). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.166.237 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that this article should be deleted as mentioned by users above, this article and the person mentioned produces no evidence, no major news organization then Fox News have reported on this issue, as such, as this page relates to current and conflicting information, it should be deleted. Jdmdk (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. She doesn't have a google-scholar profile which makes calculating the h-index more difficult, but it appears to me to be above 20, so she is not an insignificant researcher. Furthermore, her escape from China has been covered by the international press, not just Fox News, I see Indian, British, American, Hong Kong, Portuguese, and others all covering this.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * She didn't "escape" from China she was working in Hong Kong... Antonian Sapphire (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The precise status following Hong Kong national security law is debatable, but since 1997 it is One country, two systems at the least and part of the country of China.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * When we discuss the immigration issues, considered the jurisdictions (i.e. Hong Kong) rather than the sovereignty (i.e. China). --hoising (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep same answer as . --Herobrine303 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep due to multiple sources reporting on her, so passes WP:GNG. I really don't know if would also pass WP:NPROF though, but that's not required in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep fulfilled WP:GNG due to many news reports. --hoising Medexia-i (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)(talk) 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep You can delete it at any time. But wait a little longer. There is a possibility that it may bring us what we want to know.Medexia-i (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Medexia-i


 * Keep Dr Li-Meng Yan is a virologist and researcher at the University of Hong Kong, Centre of Influenza Research, who specializes in "investigations of infectious diseases or inflammation via different animal models. Her research has recently focused on the study of universal influenza vaccine, cross-reactive antibodies and cellular immunology." This is not a conspiracy theorist. Yan is a professional and her specialization would make her a credible source on COVID-19. Not only this but, since she was a researcher in a Chinese university, it would put her in a position to know whether there was pressure to not talk about or publish research about human-to-human transmission. She would also know if the Chinese government was trying to stifle investigation by Hong Kong researchers of COVID-19 in mainland China, which she also claims happened. She has even more credibility since she has actually fled Hong Kong to make these statements. It does not make sense for her to have done that to perpetrate a hoax. From this record that she has as a professional, there is no reason to question her credibility as a whistleblower. It makes perfect sense that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the University of Hong Kong would attempt to discredit her since she is acting as a whistleblower against both parties. Therefore, the University of Hong Kong comments should not be taken as a debunking of her statements. Not only is her credibility quite solid, but her story also is not simply a "one-off news story." It is common knowledge that people in Hong Kong and Mainland China have disappeared for speaking out against or simply disagreeing with the CCP. There are even examples of Doctors in the mainland disappearing for trying to publish information about COVID-19. Dr Yan's claims are also consistent with previously supposed leaked documents. Several classified documents were supposedly leaked to news organization Epoch Times that back up Yan's claims. One such document issued to regional health commissions and top-level biosafety labs in China, dated January 3rd from China's National Health Commission set out guidelines to "strengthen the management of biological samples and research activities with regard to 'the prevention and control of a major sudden outbreak of infectious diseases.'" The document stated, that agencies under the supervision of the provincial-level health commissions were “prohibited from providing biological samples, pathogens, and culture samples to any other institutes or individuals.” It also stated that these biological samples included blood samples, respiratory fluids, urine and faeces from patients. There were several other leaked documents from different districts that issued the same guidelines that COVID-19 had a high risk of transmitting person to person, should be treated with the highest caution by labs and researchers and was not to be disclosed. This is consistent with Yan's claim that Mainland China had stifled efforts of Hong Kong researchers to investigate the virus. It also shows that they were aware of evidence that COVID-19 could be transmitted person to person, yet the CCP did not disclose this. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also claims that the US government believes China covered up the extent of the coronavirus outbreak so they could stockpile on medical supplies. All of this is a small part of mounting evidence that the Chinese government had a huge campaign of covering COVID-19 and the extent of its outbreak. Dr Li-Meng Yan's statement is part of this growing evidence. Until her statements are completely disproven, this must be kept on Wikipedia as a part of a record of this evidence and should not be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanzachary56 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: Single Purpose Account contributing to this debate as its only edit and pushing political points. The Epoch Times is also not a trustworthy source at all and Wikipedia's guidelines have ruled against it- Antonian Sapphire (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Response: This is not a single purpose account. This is just the first time I have ever seen the need to make an account and I plan to use this account again if I see another time I feel my word would be useful. I am a new editor and I hope to use this account again. Also, none of what I said is a political point. I am trying to clearly state that Dr Yan is a credible person to talk about COVID-19. I have also been trying to show that her claims are even more credible because of how her claims are compatible and consistent with previously known facts about the CCP and their conduct with Hong Kong and the rest of China. If anything I stated was a political point, then this whole article is a political point since Dr Yan is talking about the supposed coverup of research and the fact that COVID-19 was human to human transmissible. Also, I now see that Epoch Times was deprecated in 2019 and I apologize. However, according to Wikipedia's list of sources, Epoch Times can still be referenced, just not to prove facts. I was not referencing them to perpetuate a conspiracy theory or show a fact. I was citing them to show documents leaked to them that talk about how the government had attempted to cover up the fact that COVID-19 could be human-to-human transmissible and the fact that researchers were prevented from investigating without explicit permission from the government. However, if Epoch Times is not trusted to share leaked documents either, that does not matter because the Associated Press (approved as reliable by Wikipedia) has stated essentially the same thing. According to the Associated Press, "On Jan. 3, the National Health Commission issued a confidential notice ordering labs with the virus to either destroy their samples or send them to designated institutes for safekeeping...The order barred Shi’s lab from publishing the genetic sequence or warning of the potential danger. Chinese law states that research institutes cannot conduct experiments on potentially dangerous new viruses without approval from top health authorities." This confidential notice is not only issued on the same date as the leaked document provided by The Epoch Times but, has almost the exact same point. The only difference is that the Epoch Times specifies what samples are prohibited from being spread to other institutes and labs, while the Associated Press does not. The point is the same. It shows that the government in China had stifled efforts of outside researchers to be able to investigate the virus. Also according to the Associated Press (AP), on January 5th, virologist Zhang Yongzhen sequenced the virus and warned the Shanghai Public Clinical Health Centre that the virus was similar to SARS and likely infectious. The Centre took Zhang's claims seriously and issued the warning, "It should be contagious through respiratory passages...We recommend taking preventative measures in public areas.” However, as both Dr Yan and the AP state, the WHO was told by the Chinese government that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. By January 8th, a woman with COVID-19 like symptoms attempting to enter Thailand had surfaced. However, due to the secrecy of the Chinese Government, the gene sequence found by Zhang could not be accessed for confirmation. Not until January 11th did Zhang release the sequence without the permission of the Chinese CDC. This angered the CDC and according to the AP caused his lab to be temporarily shut down. This clearly shows that Dr Yan's concerns about repercussions are genuine and that as a Doctor in China, she truly was prevented from publishing vital information without the permission of the government. By January 13th, the WHO had confirmed a case in Thailand. On January 14th, through a confidential teleconference admitted that a pandemic was about to begin and would be "most severe challenge since SARS in 2003". However, on the same day, Chinese officials told the WHO there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission leading the WHO to tweet, "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳." Chinese officials kept the truth hidden for another six critical days until finally admitting on January 20th, 2020 that COVID-19 transmitted between people. NONE of these points are political points. All that has been mentioned are incredibly relevant to Dr Yan's statements. Dr Yan has acted as a whistleblower against the Chinese government/CCP and stated that they stifled the ability for Hong Kong researchers such as herself to investigate COVID-19. She stated that the government knew about the human-to-human transmissibility but, prevented researchers from publishing any information at all, even if it was critical unless first approved by the CDC. She finally stated that she feared that there would be repercussions if she spoke up about her findings and was told not to talk about it. All of the points written here are pieces of evidence that support her claims. Pieces of evidence that do not rely on the deprecated source "The Epoch Times" but instead, The Associated Press, a verified reliable source and direct quotes from the WHO. I have offered these to show that her claims are not a "one-off news story" and have a real basis. To conclude, her claims do not appear to be unfounded and are in fact compatible with currently known facts about the CCP and the Chinese Government. Instead, her claims are simply part of mounting evidence that the CCP mishandled COVID-19 and withheld important information. This is incredibly important and must not be deleted so all can access her claims. Right now all evidence points to her being a genuine whistleblower since her claims seem to simply confirm what was already known or speculated on. Until it can be proven that her claims are completely wrong, this article must not be deleted. I will not delete my points backed up from the Epoch times in the original post, so all can see my original statement, this response and then compare the two. Leaving both statements will be useful in deciding whether the article must be deleted or not. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Undecided I would have to state that if Wikipedia should decide to keep this article, unless it can be shown otherwise, it should be made clear in the article that there exists no bonafide evidence to date to corroborate Doctor Li-Meng Yan's allegations regarding China and the WHO in their not being transparent about the corona virus outbreak from the very beginning. On the other hand, if Wikipedia's policy is to publish information that can be readily verified or substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt, then I would have to say that the article should be deleted until such time evidence can be presented to confirm the doctor's allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FA00:76A0:DC05:375E:5BA3:F6AF (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe it's in the public's interest to keep this article up until there's enough evidence to disprove her claims. As other people in this article have mentioned, the initial report that started the article is from a source that Wikipedia deems a reliable source (WP:FOXNEWS) and Li-Meng Yan was a virologist and researcher at the University of Hong Kong before she fled Hong Kong and knowing the situation with the Hong Kong national security law I'm not surprised that she fled since what she has done may be seen as undermining the power of the PRC which is subversion under Article 22 of the NSL or "provoking hatred among Hong Kong residents towards the Central People's Government" (Article 29). (Disclaimer: I'm not a legal professional and this is not legal advice. This is just my understanding of the law.) TechNerd2020 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Li-Meng Yan's case has received a lot of media coverage, and according to WP:WEIGHT that should be sufficient reason for inclusion. Admittedly, much of the coverage was in Murdoch media, but many of them are WP:RS. Her story seems to be that she heard from a professional colleague that the novel pneumonia was transmitted from human to human on 31 December 2019, WHO said there was no evidence of human to human transmission on 9 January, but Yan reported her knowledge of human to human transmission to her superiors on 16 January, but they told her not to talk about it. The Chinese government started the lockdown on 23 January, so human to human transmission must have been common knowledge at that time. I'm not sure what the verifiable facts are and what the truth is, but I'd like to see the claims on both sides laid out on Wikipedia for the benefit of people who are trying to figure it out. It would be a much better story if and when more reliable sources than the Murdoch media and anti-PRC media, preferably written by reporters who understand the discovery of the covid-19 virus. --Nbauman (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Li-Meng Yan's case has received a lot of media coverage, and according to WP:WEIGHT that should be sufficient reason for inclusion. Admittedly, much of the coverage was in Murdoch media, but many of them are WP:RS. Her story seems to be that she heard from a professional colleague that the novel pneumonia was transmitted from human to human on 31 December 2019, WHO said there was no evidence of human to human transmission on 9 January, but Yan reported her knowledge of human to human transmission to her superiors on 16 January, but they told her not to talk about it. The Chinese government started the lockdown on 23 January, so human to human transmission must have been common knowledge at that time. I'm not sure what the verifiable facts are and what the truth is, but I'd like to see the claims on both sides laid out on Wikipedia for the benefit of people who are trying to figure it out. It would be a much better story if and when more reliable sources than the Murdoch media and anti-PRC media, preferably written by reporters who understand the discovery of the covid-19 virus. --Nbauman (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6489:E400:F869:3067:C7DE:3DA (talk)


 * Keep For now at least. I didn't know where else to turn to find out more about her when I saw the headlines, and I expect many others will do the same. Whether or not she has been groomed by the Trump administration (or its associates) and the veracity of her claim has no bearing on the public interest in her at this point; WP:GNG has already been met. But given the extent to which this has been politicised and the amount of tinfoilhattery around her story, and SARS-CoV-2 in general, the article will surely need to be monitored for dodgy edits. Unuphrio Muralto (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject meets WP:GNG. This case is evolving and should be represented on Wikipedia. This gives the public a place to review the information in a public forum that has moderated controls. Also, found this reference to Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters publication where Dr. Leo Poon & Li-Meng Yan are listed as authors  ArticleTheFirst (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Li-Meng Yan's news is incredibly important to the whole human future. Those who are trying to delete this entry are obviously from the propaganda machine of the Chinese Communist Party. This person has been vetted by FBI and other relevant US government officials, otherwise, FOX news wouldn't cover this in the first place. Everything that has happened over the past half a year, aligns with Dr. Yan's claim. Yan is the hero of the humankind. (Disclaimer: I don't represent anyone else than myself. I am just a concerned individual.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.72 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Like the message, or don't like the message, the subject matter and this alleged whistleblower is certainly notable. And very timely. Putting this up for deletion one day after its creation, is a little too quick-draw on such a serious subject.  Give this time to play out.  Most whistle blowers are immediately discredited by any person or entity with something to lose.  Keep this one, and let it ride its course. — Maile  (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep without any doubt! Why bloody China regime is so afraid of Dr. Yan? She's a brave witness to reveal evidence of that dictatorship China and many evil Chinese' schemes to destroy U.S., the West, and the whole world by lies and the China-produced/Chinese-spawned Wuhan coronavirus in the labs. We should keep critical information and reliable sources of this crime of the century. Considering her experience and the documents she brought out to the free world, she will definitely testify much more details on China's terrorist genocide with biological warfare and long-time cover-up. It's just a beginning! Since years ago, Chinese communist party puppets on Wikipedia, along with their boss and that communist-controlled WHO, want to hide all kinds of truth! The Chinese, Russian, Spanish, Catalan, Vietnamese and more versions of Wikipedia already confirmed the importance of her role. Wikipedians can add more information for readers all around the world! --Wildcursive (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with whichever page is curating China's handling of COVID-19. I see no reason why this person should have a standalone article rather than a section in another article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Undecided IDK but the Main Argument about Why not to delete it seems to only reason "China and Evil Chinese want to Destroy the West". Citing Conspiracies like WHO is puppet without Proof and claiming the Chinese Comrades want it deleted. Moreover overwriting Wikipedia articles that cite "Alledged" with "Certain" in some cases without Concrete Proof and an NPOV. Michael Zager (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very few people seem to be saying that in practice. Most are saying how the article meets WP:GNG based on the level of coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2020 (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.