Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ran Yunfei


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ran Yunfei

 * – ( View AfD View log )

notability questionable due to WP:BOMBARD; biography entirely unsourced; "Current situation" section suggests WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. Of the citations used, two are 404 links to pages on boxun.com that do not exist, and two are from the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders" website, which does not meet WP:RS requirements as it is not a WP:NPOV source. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability is not obtained parasitically by proximity to a notable event (the 2011 Chinese Twitter non-revolution). The arrest event that included him was a news story, but if he were as famous as CHRD's campaign boasts, then he should have had reliable source coverage before then. Quigley (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Only involved in one event (2011 Chinese protests) and no RS mentioning him before that (per Quigley).Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Even putting aside all the current RS descriptions of him as a "prominent dissident," "prominent blogger," etc, there's a great deal of other substantial coverage: Jan 2010, "one of China's most famous online commentators" ; Dec 2009, NYTimes, "Ran Yunfei, a well-known blogger in Sichuan Province who signed the manifesto [Chrter 08]" ; dec 2008, "Ran Yunfei, a famous critic" ; attempts by the PRC govty to suppress his writings were reported by Reporters Without Borders as far back as 2009 . This nomination doesn't hold a drop of water. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep seem to be clearly enough sources, and his notability extends over a considerable period.    DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Oh Jesus! The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China. As demonstrated by the multiple reliable source, the subject passes WP:BIO. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice WP:ADHOM there. I know I might be handsome, but argue the content, not me. For a taste of your own medicine, this edit summary makes you look just as partisan. Now, see how WP:ATTACKs and ad hominem arguments are pointless? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note, commenting on an observed editing pattern of an editor does not constitute personal attack. Read WP:NPA. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * > The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove information that can be considered negative to the Communist Party of China  > The AfD is part of an ongoing attempt by the nominator to remove non-notable BLP pages and hubbub that seems to be used by editors with activist-like tendencies to make their  WP:ADVOCACY  clear  Fixed that for you. --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:BLP1E does not apply, WP:ANYBIO does. Notable. --bender235 (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ANYBIO: > The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.   > The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field  The first one is nil, the second one is disputable. --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable per press coverage, see User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment. --bender235 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are four reference sites. CHRD is an activist group. Boxun is activist as well, as is Asianews (see Asianews' about us page, they are anti-government pro christian). There is not problem having a few activist references in an article as long as it is kept NPOV and unbiased.  All All but one (there's a reuters one) references from this article came from activist groups. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per sources and arguments provided by "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz". Sufficient sources more that one event and no valid policy based reason for deletion. IQinn (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This guy is not only one of the historical figures among Chinese dissidents, since he was active in the 1989 pro-democracy movement, but he signed the Charta 08 and his blog is widely read. — Waikiki_lwt Talk &#124; contribs &#124; email 08:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:15, 23 April 2011 (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.