Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cheng


 * 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. Nakon 03:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael_Cheng
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability requirements. Note the article was previously deleted here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Cheng_%28entrepreneur%29_%282nd_nomination%29, but was recreated under a different name (not undeleted). Although it now has a very impressive 24 references, I believe they do not fulfill notability. 10 of these are for winning U25 or student awards, many repetitions of the same award. These are rightfully criticized in previous deletion ("'Top 25 under 25' and 'Future Leaders of Canada' mean not yet notable."). Another 5 are articles relating to participation in student program, Next36. Note Cheng is the only one of the 36 currently notable enough for WP (despite media coverage for all), as well as the only one of his fellow U25 award winners considered notable. Of the remaining links, I'd consider one blogspam, a few don't mention him at all, and one covers his *rejection* from an accelerator.

A basic requirement of notability for living entrepreneurs should be having founded at least one moderately successful business. Michael Cheng currently has none. This article covers someone who may become very notable, but at the moment, is not.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 08:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete This appears to be little more than a wiki-résumé. I see no evidence of real-world notability, suspect author has a WP:COI.  KDS 4444  Talk  19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: At least 8 editors have contributed to the creation and development of this article so who is the author of this article? I have performed 38% of those edits are you accusing me of having a COI? Comments about "suspected COI" without any prior action at COIN or relevant diffs is an irresponsible, unfounded slander that has no place in a content discussion. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - the first two sources alone (Maclean’s & Vancouver Sun) are enough to establish clear notability as both are extensive coverage and well known, reliable sources. Notability is not decided based on the importance of the person, which is subjective, but rather the amount of coverage.  Cheng is therefore notable under the GNG.  The use of some low quality and/or repetitive sources doesn't change that.  Also, do not confuse "not notable" with "doesn't have an article".  Literally millions of notable subjects do not yet have articles.  Additionally, Cheng's company (Sniply) has attracted reliable source coverage, which may not be true of others that the nominator wishes to compare him to, and certainly wasn't true as of 2 years ago when the previous AfD occurred.  Finally, a COI is not relevant to AfD and the article was accepted at AfC by experience Wikipedian, so even if there is one the COI editor followed proper procedures. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The first two sources existed in past AfD, they were not good enough then. Only change is Sniply, which I disagree has or has given Cheng notability.
 * I do agree though that Cheng meets GNG coverage requirement, but that does not imply notability. "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." To take a more extreme example of I think the same issue, every year 2 - 3 high school students in my city get significant media coverage for getting straight 100%s in highschool; they meet GNG, but no one claims their high school grades give them notability. Magedq (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cases where someone clearly meets the GNG but in found not notable are exceedingly rare. Other than children of celebrities, I can't think of any.  There is disagreement whether the GNG is met in many AfDs, but whether a person is notable after the GNG is shown to be met is not normally discussed.  At the very least, "presumed" puts the burden of proof that the subject should be considered non-notable on you.  At this point your argument seems to be a combination of "I don't like that someone of this level of importance is notable", and "other articles don't exist", both of which are very weak arguments.
 * There is no evidence in the first AfD that anyone evaluated those sources and discounted them. Every argument was based either on the non-neutral state of the article or the policy idea that notability is a synonym for importance. ("Page is biased", "a fairly unimportant topic filled with primary research and bias", "'Future Leaders of Canada' mean not yet notable",  " purely biased, certainly not a ... Steve Jobs").  The only comment on the actual sources was a keep !vote by the article creator:  If people evaluated the sources and discounted them (doubtful based on their comments), they were mistaken - there is absolutely nothing wrong with those sources.  Routine local coverage (i.e. your straight A example) is normally not counted toward the GNG, but that is not what we have here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm relatively new to WP, so maybe I misunderstand how much judgement can be applied in accepting the sources here. The source's content should be a factor in avoiding those trading up the chain or self-promoting. Further, if a subject claims notability as an entrepreneur, I think it is reasonable to use the companies (or lack of) the subject has founded as a factor in judging notability.
 * I see little difference between this Toronto Star article, and the Vancouver Sun/many of the sources here. Despite the reliable source, editors can apply the judgement that the student's accomplishments don't achieve any reasonable definition of notability, or "evidence of real-world notability" as put by Keithbob. This is my reasoning on Cheng, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT or othering. Magedq (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well your original comment said "Note Cheng is the only one of the 36 currently notable enough for WP", which is a clear argument of "other articles don't exist". If you now agree that that part of your comment is irrelevant, then great, we agree...  The main difference between your link and Cheng is the nature of the coverage.  The article about a girl who got straight A's is just about her grades. In Cheng's case, some of the coverage is quite biographical (e.g. McLean's).  Biographical coverage conveys notability, coverage about a single event does not.  Note that Cheng's coverage stems from multiple "events", not a single one.  If all coverage was for winning a single award, you would have a point, but actually the coverage is for many different awards, among other things.  Additionally, the A's girl was covered by one local paper, not the dozen different newspapers Cheng was covered by.
 * I do not understand your point about "trading up the chain". Are you suggesting that Cheng supplied the content to the newspaper that covered him?  Unless you have some evidence that he did and these newspapers don't fact check (or at least didn't here), then you are just hypothesizing.  Again, the burden of proof that the numerous print newspapers that covered Cheng are not reliable here is on you, not me.  Otherwise, the subject meets the GNG (as you yourself acknowledge) and is "presumed" notable.  You may believe that Cheng's awards shouldn't make him notable (technically they don't), but reliable sources have decided he is notable enough to cover in depth multiple times (which does make him notable).  I will defer to the judgement of reliable sources here, which is what Wikipedia normally does too.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * re: factchecking. Article currently says "As of 2013, WittyCookie employed 40 people" based on Vancouver Sun source. This just seems very far from reality. WittyCookie's team were not working on WittyCookie in 2013. Cheng himself was part of the student incubator N36. The "CEO" could not have been managing a team of 40. Most likely they contracted out their work and are using a generous definition of "employed." Vancouver Sun probably took the statement at face value. Vancouver Sun profile, N36 lead to a couple of other profiles (i.e. Betakit, the couple sources here), which is honestly just successful self-promotion (or trading up the chain). Magedq (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Keep - The article has more than enough reliable sources to establish notability including Maclean's, Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail etc. Cheng is the feature some of the articles, has received multiple awards and been included in several lists of top entrepreneurs. For me, Cheng clearly meets the notability guideline.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:48, 5 May 2015 (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.