Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shan Lie


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  03:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Shan Lie

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I think this is a case of WP:BLP1E, as the subject would be not notable (just a province-level official, certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN) without the incident about his child.

Furthermore, in the article, we only have two sources about the strained relationship between the subject and his child. One is reported by RFA (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333, and another is from a news aggregator. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've noted your concerns regarding WP:BLP1E and the controversy surrounding the official's child. While he may not have a high profile in politics, serving as a provincial propaganda department head, it doesn't necessarily violate Wikipedia's notability standards. Perhaps we can delve deeper into his responsibilities and impact in the propaganda field to assess whether he meets the criteria.

Regarding the controversy, I acknowledge the limited sources, with one being from RFA. I will make it explicit in the article and indicate the sources of the reports for transparency. Additionally, I'll search for other reliable sources to supplement the information gap, enhancing the comprehensiveness and reliability of the article. Please elaborate further on your concerns about notability standards and provide any additional information so that I can better address your requests.Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Hzt0208042508415531 tw, thanks for your attention. I might be in the wrong here, as the official does have a province-wide office, and thus could be presumed to be notable by WP:POLITICIAN. I am not sure, as he only holds the position of the vice bureau head and an inspector, not the bureau head. More comments are welcome.


 * Moreover, satisfying WP:POLITICAN does not necessarily mean we could have an article about the subject. To quote from WP:Notability (people), meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. We should have a closer look at the WP:General Notability Guideline (GNG).


 * To quote from GNG, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let's look at the sources in the article that talks about the subject's public office.
 * "政務公開". 浙江省人民政府 – this is a primary source from the government of Zhejiang, not a secondary source
 * "單烈". 浙江省廣播電視局. – trivial profile page that only says about the subject's gender, ethnicity, age, and education
 * "浙江省拟提拔任用省管领导干部任前公示通告". 中國共產黨新聞網 – this is a WP:Routine coverage (publicizing candidates of public offices) with trivial mention
 * "浙江任免华宣飞、陆伟利、姚昭晖、徐建刚、凌云、金伯中等职务". 中國經濟網 – one-line trivial mention
 * 海外網 (2021-07-21). "浙江省庆祝建党百年国际传播大型融媒系列活动启动仪式在嘉兴举行". 新浪網 – mentions the subject's name only twice, and the subject is not the focus of the article
 * "浙江广电局党组书记沈铭权：全力夺取广播电视网络视听工作高分报表". 鳳凰網浙江 – this only gives a trivial mention of the subject in the first paragraph only
 * "浙江省人民政府关于章朝平等职务任免的通知". – a one-line mention from a primary, governmental source
 * I hope you understand my point that these sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards. I also did a little bit of searching and could not find any significant coverage. Without the controversy, I am afraid that the subject will not pass the general notability guideline. Even if you find reliable sources for the controversy, the situation would become like BLP1E and is still concerning. Many thanks. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RFA itself is not necessarily a bad source–but I am also wary if only RFA talks about the controversy, as RFA could have a bias on LGBT issues in mainland China. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your analysis, this article focuses on the biography of an official, even excluding controversial events, these sources are sufficient to prove the validity of the information, and the space itself is very small.What's more, if you take back of the word "certainly", it will be better.The article did not mention too many details of the dispute because I asked the party concerned and he could not produce direct evidence. But according to the media, it is certain that his eldest daughter was harmed. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, his controversy and influence are more than these, but limited by the biographical policy of the living, there is no reliable source, so he did not write it. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hzt0208042508415531 tw, I am happy to take back the word "certainly". In my second response I have acknowledged that.
 * A few more things:
 * "I asked the party concerned and he could not produce direct evidence." The party concerned is an unpublished source and should not be used for sources. We should only limit the discussion to the published sources.
 * As a side note, do you have a WP:conflict of interest to the subject or anyone involved in this article, since you have contact with "the party concerned"? If yes, I encourage you to declare it.
 * "these sources are sufficient to prove the validity of the information". You are correct that these sources are true, and I don't doubt that. Validity is not the issue here, it's notability. I might have not stressed this point clearly in my previous response, and I am sorry if that causes any confusion.


 * We create a Wiki article if there is enough notability. Trivial, marginal mentions do not constitute notability. Simply being a province-level official also does not automatically constitute notability. I have analysed the sources in the article to show that these sources don't show significant coverage of the subject, and thus do not contribute to the notability.
 * Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's no use talking about attention with me. I just interviewed the client. Can you help modify the internal link?Good Luck. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hzt0208042508415531 tw, by using the word "client", are you saying you are a WP:paid editor? If so, you have a heavy conflict of interest and are discouraged from editing the article directly, until you disclose it and tell us what is your true relationship with anyone involved in this article, and whether you have received benefit from them. You also ought to create the article through the WP:articles for creation process.
 * Please, disclose your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page or talk page. Otherwise, I am afraid that I will need to raise it to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Cheers, -- The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what I mean. The client means the person to be interviewed.His daughter did not entrust me to edit it. Please note that the Chinese version had already those content before I edit it.I just made some slight edition.Good luck. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 11:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
 * Logs:
 * --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete After reading the above, I think BLP1E applies, but I'd be more comfortable with !voting delete if I could read Chinese and do my own search for relevant sources. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2024 (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.