Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ching (businessman)


 * 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) Antigng (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Michael Ching (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Attack page, WP:BLP1E. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Softlavender. This is a BLP violation written in an "accentuate the negative" style. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article appears negative, it simply reflects the coverage he's received in media. He's best known for being one of China's most wanted fugitives and and being wanted by Interpol. The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board has also concluded he has likely committed a White Collar Crime when rejecting his refugee application. See CBC News. -Zanhe (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 06:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Cheng Weigao — Initially I thought WP:NOTNEWS. Then I wondered if this is a high profile case making this person notable.  One of the CBC links I found  has the sensationalist title "5 from B.C. on China's 'most wanted' list of 22 alleged criminals".  There are many results, some more recent than the references of that article.  Ching's father (Cheng Weigao) appears to be notable, although we have WP:NOTINHERITED.  Assuming that this event makes Michael Ching notable, since I cannot find much other information about this person other than relating to these events (and that he's a real estate developer), we would end up with an article which can only discuss this, like what we have now.  But is this really an WP:ATTACK page if it's well referenced and the person became notable because of this event?  Some sources question China's motivations.  This then brings us to discuss his father and to possibly make the article more neutral by showing that the motivations are disputed.  But Cheng Weigao's page already has a section "Son" which could simply be updated and kept minimal.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 06:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * His father died years ago, and his current career as a property developer, his political donations, and his wanted status have little to do with his father. Makes no sense to stuff everything into his father's article. -Zanhe (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - he is one of the most wanted fugitives in China and wanted by Interpol ; that by itself should qualify him for WP:GNG. Besides China, he has received extensive and lasting coverage in Canada, Hong Kong, and the US. See Globe and Mail, CBC News, Vancouver Sun, MSN, etc. He's been connected to the Panama Papers (see SCMP), and is a major donor to Canadian politicians including Justin Trudeau (see SCMP). CBC News calls him a "prominent developer", and even his daughter's activities are reported by the National Post because of his high profile. Meets WP:GNG without a doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The general topic of how the PRC is handling corruption, international repercussions, and connections with other countries is important enough to tip the balance in favor of keeping this article, if there were doubt.ch (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He is not WP:BLP1EVENT, his work in Canada appears unrelated to the Chinese arrest warrant; he has some significant coverage. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. The tone here does not suggest an "attack piece". The article draws no conclusions about the validity of the Chinese warrant. --Bejnar (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2017 (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.