Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangwen Fang


 * 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: if the nominator had focused on his notability instead of the hurt feelings of a cat abuser, there might have been more support for deletion. But in this particular discussion, Kinu's argument says much of what needs to be said. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shangwen Fang
Reason First, It doesn't seem that Fang is willingly to be in public domain (according to his statement in zh-wiki) and neither did he himself being publicized voluntarily - he is not a public figure at all. Fang's personal information was being disclosed to public by media illegally, and those personal information have nothing to do with the cat abuse. (As for the definition of public figure, please refer to the case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,351(1974). )

Second, is there anybody interested in Fang's life except for the cat incident? (If you did, you should have put these information into this article.) Cat abusing is only a little part of Fang's whole life, and will anybody include his early life, his work, and his studies with detailed description as his biography in Wiki? Are those biography important enough to make Fang an article?

Third, the article was filled with subjective comment, and I don't think that Wiki is a place for outrageous cat lovers to humiliate their dislike person. This place is supposed to be neutral, it's not a personal blog.

For the above mentioned reasons, this article should be removed. Fanoffang 13 August 2006

--flyinggenie 01:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moderate keep. Notability is iffy but appears to be sufficiently established.  Subject's desire is irrelevant.  (I gave a stronger keep vote at the Chinese Wikipedia AFD discussion -- because notability is stronger as to the Chinese-speaking community -- but here, relevance is less.)  Not being an attorney in Taiwan, I can't comment on Taiwanese law, but I am sure that no American court would consider the amount of information in the article currently to be any form of invasion of privacy, as all of it is in the public record.  Whether he's a "public figure" as a matter of law is not relevant; when there is no disclosure of material that would trigger an invasion of privacy claim, it doesn't matter how non-public the individual is; no invasion of property claim can lie under the disclosure, in particular, of a court record.  --Nlu (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion I am sorry to discourage you that none information regard to this case was from the court, actually, this case will never be brought to the court unless Taiwanese law change. Surely there's nothing to do with any "court record". Since the information was being disclosed to the public illegally through media, according to The Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine, others' disclosure will be regarded as illegal as well. You may have to update your knowledge about the whole incident -- Fanoffang 13 August 2006
 * Police record is covered under the same doctrine. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply -- the fruit of the poisonous doctrine applies when illegal government conduct, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, leads to the discovery of evidence.  Even then, it only applies in a criminal case, not to an administrative or civil case.  Perhaps you need to brush up on your American constitutional law before you start citing American cases and doctrines.  --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to discourage you again that The Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine is the practice of due process of law. It applies not only to criminal cases but all legal actions. In this case, medias disclosed the information illegally, and the editor claimed that he was just quoting what he has seen through media - since the tree (disclosure of personal information by media) was being poisoned, the fruit (the disclosure of personal information by editor) is poisoned, too, and the fruit shall not be the excuse for reliving. This also means that no infringer could be relieved just by alleging that his information is from others. Try to study some more and I guarantee that will be helpful. -- Fanoffang  14 August 2006
 * Fine, as you wish. I trust that my law school alma mater taught me well enough.  --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow!! Then I highly suggest(with courtesy) that you will never let your dear professor in law school alma mater know that how you magically turn a case which will never go to the court to court record. -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006
 * keep His name and the university he graduated from are not illegal information, all of these are from public domain and can be referenced. Bobbybuilder 01:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Miss Qu and Paris Hilton's sex vedios are confer to your definition of disclosing - sex vedio is not illegal information, and these vedios could be retrieve from public domain and can be referenced. I may have to remind the readers that the article Shangwen Fang in ZH-wiki has been removed due to the reason of lack of importance. -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006
 * Chu and Paris Hilton has court order to block distribution. Did Fang file for blocking of distributing his name? I also remind you that the article Shangwen Fang in Zh-wiki has been combined to the Neihu Cat Abuse incident due to the overlapping of content and not by the privacy concern or lack of importance. Bobbybuilder 02:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this content is here illegally, Wikimedia Foundation should be conacted directly, as they have more experience in handling these matters than us regular editors. --GunnarRene 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are thousands of articles appear every day and how could we expect those few voluntary editors to know all kinds of regulations? I am sorry to discourage the upper stairs that both Qu and Hilton filed no order to block the distribution of the video. Illegality won't become legality whether the subject claims his right or not. Besides, the deletion process of the article Shangwen Fang in Zh-wiki rises because of the lack of importance, and this has been acknowledged by most voters. Article of Shangwen Fang no longer exists in ZH-wiki now and the article of "Incidence" is apparently not the biography of Fang. Therefore, I'm afraid that you are also the one needs to renew your knowledge toward the whole incident. Well, maybe not just the incident, but some common sense such as Qu and Hilton. -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006
 * Comment It's very misleading for you to say that the information has been removed from the Chinese Wikipedia.  It's been merged into the article on the incident itself.  --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep due to the lack of any cited violation of inclusion policy or guideline here. The information is verifiable, is not original research, and is written in a neutral point of view; even if it wasn't, that's grounds for cleanup, not deletion. Further, the article is not making slanderous or defamatory comments about this individual, and it seems to adhere to biography standards for living people. If you feel there's a bigger legal issue involved, contact the Wikimedia foundation directly; AfD is NOT the place for it, as Wikipedia editors are not bound, per se, to enforce either Taiwanese or American law in this regard, except where indirectly noted (i.e., in the case of copyright violations). NOTE: no prejudice to renomination based on a real guideline/policy, i.e., WP:BIO. -- Kinu t /c  05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It should be noted that Fanoffang's edits have themselves violated a policy -- no legal threats.  --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Notorious subject. Tafinucane 08:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just curious: legal threat to whom? -- Fanoffang 14 August 2006
 * Comment Let us know what's your problem here. We have clearified that there's nothing illegal here, and if you want to use legal threats here then go ahead. Bobbybuilder 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the this article with the article about the incident itself. The incident and resulting changes to law (or proposed changes) are notable.  The person is not notable other than by his/her association with this one and only incident.... unless more than one or two Wikipedia articles mention this guy, he's really just a nobody.  Rklawton 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no article about the incident itself. Besides, Fang became and still is an internet phenomenon in Taiwan because of his action before and after the incident. Most of the entires regarding internet phenomenon have merely only one or two wikipedia articles related to them. Please refer to Henry Earl, Ellen Feiss, Dog poop girl and other similar pages. Bobbybuilder 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a totally nn, unencyclopedic entry. --DrL 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no need to set an article for a nobody.
 * Comment the contribution above consists of flyinggenie's only contribution to Wikipedia. Rklawton 14:24, 18 August 2006 (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.