Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies


 * 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 merge to Michael Yeung Ming-cheung. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Listed this at BLPN, but since I've gotten no response there, I'm taking it to AfD because I think its worth discussing whether or not this should be deleted as a POV-fork and a BLP violation. It is currently simply a collection of controversies involving one Chinese Catholic bishop, Michael Yeung Ming-cheung. It only presents negative information, and as such is completely opposed to NPOV as required by the BLP policy. Take your pick as to whether or not it should be deleted under WP:DEL5 or WP:DEL9, but in my mind, it meets both criteria for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- The Catholic bishop in Hong Kong has been at the center of some strong controversies, with some dating back to 2010. Some of the controversies have even been reported by English-language media outside of Hong Kong. I wrote the Chinese version of the article over at Chinese Wikipedia, and I have also included information that are not negative as well. I will translate as soon as I can. If we delete this due to a supposed BLP violation (even when there are multiple, independent, reliable sources), it will result in a slant that is overtly positive, and not neutral in its own ways. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 22:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And on en.wiki we handle it by addressing the situation in the article about the subject with appropriate weighting given to all topics as reported by reliable sourcing, not by having a separate page only for scandals. How zh.wiki chooses to handle the issue is irrelevant to en.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying, User:TonyBallioni. I did not say "ZH wiki does this, so we should do it as well". I merely said I will translate what was written on ZH wiki's corresponding page to this page. Nor am I advocating we change the way we do things here as well. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is currently roughly 5x the size of his actual biography at ~26k byte compared to ~5k bytes. There is no possible way that adding some positive commentary in a negative POV-fork could make it comply with the BLP policy. This is a POV fork involving a BLP and should not exist separate from the main article, and it certainly all shouldn't be merged or restored to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet, the fact remains that this guy has stirred up a lot of controversy over the past 7-8 years in Hong Kong, and the controversies are well documented by press. It's not BLP non-compliant, in my opinion, if the guy has done bad things. I understand we are not here to smear, but we are also not here to whitewash or glorify. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I also point to a similar situation over at Pat Robertson controversies. As of now, it stands at ~70k bytes, compared to ~58k bytes for the main Pat Robertson page. That's an example that we have done negative POV-fork before (that page was created a decade ago, and it has survived a discussion similar to this one). I'm not even counting the ones we did for John Kerry, Hillary Clinton (there's an entire category for it). Deleting this page, in my opinion, will result in an overtly positive POV for this Catholic bishop, which will be totally incompatible with the controversies he has stirred up over the years. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 07:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a significant difference between major controversies involving former US presidential candidates and controversies involving a bishop of a minority religious group in a region. I actually think the Pat Robertson controversies page needs to be looked at as well to see if it should be deleted or merged, and thank you for bringing it up. There is no attempt to whitewash here. The content can be placed in the main biography if it meets our BLP requirements for proper weighting per NPOV. It cannot have its own article that will not be monitored by anyone to simply serve as a webhost for a laundry list of controversies with excessive detail. That is a gross violation of the BLP policy and the NPOV policy. Since you split this from the main article after adding it there, we have no need to keep the history or the POV redirect. We can selectively restore the content to the main article once consensus is reached as to what is appropriate and won't violate the BLP policy and NPOV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with article on Michael Yeung Ming-cheung. This article just has a sub-heading on controversies, but this section of this article does not say much  - it might be easier to navigate Wikipedia if the article on controversies this figure has generated were merged with this article. Vorbee (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The content was split from the article, so it is already in its history, so a selective restoration could take place without the need to keep the article history here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge w/ history merge, but delete this page after the fact, no comment on actual content. Splitting off a controversy section on an article that short was absolutely unnecessary and violates BLP. The content itself doesn't (at least at first blush), but just calling it out by itself in a separate article is extremely poor form and should not be done unless WP:SIZE necessitates it. So merge the content back with history, and then delete this, as the redirect is not helpful. --M ASEM (t) 15:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Michael Yeung Ming-cheung in drastically-reduced form.  This article has serious BLP issues as noted above and many of the "controversies" are either mere statements of Catholic doctrine, rumors, or actually statements made by his predecessor in the position.  Pointing to Pat Robertson is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and not relevant.  Even if it were, Robertson is easily distinguished from Bishop Yeung. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we can merge in a way that will not result in whitewashing of the many, many controversies this man has faced, I will be open to it. I will oppose, however, deletion without merger. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with a history only merger along the lines of what Masem suggested, and then working towards consensus as to what we should restore. Currently some of this stuff is WP:COATRACK and a myriad of other BLP violations. We also tend away from using "controversy" headings in article. Including criticism is fine, but wholesale restoring a criticism section that is 5x the length of the current article without consensus as to what specifically should be merged is not in line with the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to work towards consensus on what is restored, but that should happen as soon as humanly possible. Any delays will degrade the credibility of Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge this good-faith fork. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively. There are some COATRACK and ATTACK aspects to this article; no doubt from those with a different political POV.  This particularly applies to issues that relate, not to him but his predecessor.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 12 November 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.