Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Chen Gang


 * 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 snow keep. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Suicide of Chen Gang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the subject's life and death could be called tragic, they are not notable enough per our guidelines to make a fully-fledged tragedy. There's some newspaper coverage on this person but that's all there is, and all of that is from basically right after his death. In other words, there seems to be no longterm importance. In addition, since the man wasn't notable in any other way, though his jobs or positions, it's a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not able to find any long-term coverage, except for the open letter written to him after he died. This is better sourced than the Chinese article (zh:陈刚_%28教师%29), but I can't find the lasting impact. I did just the basic search I could do; if anyone is able to find more, I'll change to keep. This is a well-researched and written article for the most part so it would be a shame if it had to go. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. I thank above editors for their comments, although I do plead for them to reconsider. I actually stumbled upon this story while doing research for an article on a completely unrelated "Chen Gang" - and came across the dab page on the Chinese Wikipedia; as such I hope you can understand that I have no other interest whatsoever for writing about this seemingly unremarkable mid-level functionary except for the encyclopedic value it brings and the deeper issues that it touches upon.My peers can attest to the fact that of my 12 years on Wikipedia I have never so thoroughly researched for an article and had it nominated for deletion. That aside, I definitely can see where the above two editors are coming from if we were to rely on the letter of our policies, and in any case I am happy to submit to consensus. But consider a few things. The discussion on Chinese social media and Chinese overseas websites for this event was ubiquitous after it occurred. Duowei and Boxun, two of the most read Chinese-language news portals outside of China, covered the story on their front pages. That the only major reporting belonged to the Southern media group points to concerted efforts at censorship by the state, and we indeed have evidence that authorities shut down social media posts about the incident shortly after it occurred. The 'open letter', penned with a remarkable amount of self-censorship, was the only essay speaking to its lasting impact, not because there was no demand for long-term coverage, but because there was a censorship regime in place to prevent long-term coverage. Thirdly, if we were to delete this well researched article using the criteria cited above, then by extension we also should consider deleting 2011 Huizhou refinery explosion incident, Xinyang bus fire, and the 2011 Yunnan protest, none of which had any long-term impact. Fourth, it's worthwhile mentioning that there should be no doubt that this would be a 'speedy keep' on the Chinese Wikipedia, and the corresponding article on wikiclone Baidu Baike has several hundred thousand hits. One might simply consider how something like the Disappearance of Natalee Holloway might be seen to a group of Chinese Wikipedia users to see how unremarkable this death might seem to be trivial to one group but extraordinarily notable to another group. I hope the editors proposing deletion can also appreciate why I may have chosen to create this article being fully aware of Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and why I would see it as worthy of encyclopedic value and readership.  Thank you for your consideration! Colipon+ (Talk) 02:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Colipon, no one is impugning your motives--that's not what this is about. But we cannot go on conjecture, esp. if that conjecture is "there would have been more coverage had it not been for...". Now, that the article is "well-researched" may well be true, but the fact remains that there's not much to research, as you yourself said. Conversation on websites and social media doesn't matter--what matters is what reliable sources, preferably in print have to say. The comparison with other articles isn't that relevant anyway: WP:OTHERSTUFF, and if it were up to me 2011 Yunnan protest would be deleted as well, if there was nothing to add to the existing coverage. Bottomline is, we need coverage. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  00:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm going to change to keep. My feeling was that while the open letter (more than a year after his death) was printed in many news outlets, it was done so without any additional media analysis that I would have liked to see. However, I think editor makes a good point about the censorship possibly being a factor. I want to avoid any systemic bias that may come to play because we expect the usual in-depth media analysis that we have in the free press. So I will change to keep, as I do think the open letter indicates its long-term notability and coverage, giving that it addressed (analyzed) Guanxi in a way that actually was quite significant.  —Мандичка YO 😜 03:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. (or one possible thing) If we are going to say "keep" based on the thought that there would have been more coverage had there been no official censorship, then we are basically denying our mandate that we base our decisions on reliable sourcing. Moreover, Western media are of course quite keen to report on things suppressed in China--so if we can draw conclusions from what we don't know, a more immediate conclusion could well be that since this wasn't picked up, it's not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Colipon. --TIAYN (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a real fence sitter. Even if all claims are substantiated, at present, we are going to have trouble with this being an independent entry as opposed to an entry/section in an article on "corruption" in contemporary China. At present, this may be a galvanizing testimony to corruption and a rallying point for the pursuit of reform, but we're betting on the future to suggest that, as an independent article, it's. . . . It's on the line, either way. Perhaps we should default to keep in matters of doubt, though. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did try to keep the article balanced enough so it is not entirely certain whether this was an act of a deranged man or in fact a hero pushed to die by a corrupt system. I mention corruption because I believe it is a notable view, but the article doesn't explicitly stand behind this thesis. In any case, thanks for your input! Colipon+ (Talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There are some arguments for deletion, but I think WP:BLP1E would call for deletion of an article about Chen Gang, the person, but not "Suicide of Chen Gang.". That is, Chen Gang the person is not notable, but a protest suicide which is part of a general pattern is. The case might be further strengthened by creating a category something like "Anti-regime protests in the PRC" -- that's not quite right, but I think you can see the idea. Or maybe an article to anchor the category? That is, it would be good to offer readers other pieces in a general pattern.
 * Another consideration in my mind comes from looking at Colipon's "Contributions," which include a number of articles in this general area, plus mention on the Talk Page of deleting articles for non-notability. This leads me to think that it is reasonable to give the benefit of any doubt to Colipon's judgment. ch (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - This nomination is not without merit, but Colipon's argument and comparison of the case with Disappearance of Natalee Holloway are convincing. This does appear to be a notable case that's been widely covered in both Chinese and international (albeit Chinese-language) media. Disclosure: I've collaborated with Colipon on several articles in the past, so my views may be biased. -Zanhe (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't read Mandrin, but the sources have in depth coverage of something. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2015 (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.