Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symington W. Smith


 * 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 delete. Redirect can be created as an editorial decision if so desired. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Symington W. Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability unclear under WP:ACADEMIC and GNG. There's a lot of original research (synthesis) and the article reads like a resume possibly written by a paid editor. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Many of the citations are about family members and do not establish independent notability. The article was highly WP:SPS reliant before these were marked cn. Even if it were kept it would need to be heavily rewritten to meet MOS and NPOV.  Shadowssettle   Need a word?  23:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Very selective merge/redirect to Wei Wei (singer) (where he is already mentioned) to the article of his mother. I reviewed a selection of the article's sources and found them to be unreliable sources or passing mentions. I was unable to find substantial coverage about Symington W. Smith in my searches for sources. Most of the sources I found briefly mentioned him in the context of his mother. I agree with the nominator's analysis that much of the article is synthesis and reads like a resume, so a merge (if one is done) should be very selective. I am also fine with a redirect without a merge but I support retaining the article's history as there are numerous sources in the article that discuss the subject in passing that can be used to support adding a small amount of material about him to his mother's article. I am willing to change my mind and support retention if any editor can list at least two reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is a lot of promotional content in the article and online, but none of it supports notability. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nearly all issues raised can be fixed with deeper extensive editing. Deletion of the entire article is much too heavy-handed, and deletion should always be the last resort. Regarding notability, the article was reviewed multiple times and approved long ago by experienced editors when the article was first submitted in the Articles for Creation, and conflict of interest was also cleared at the time. Subject is not really an academic, so WP:ACADEMIC does not apply here, but I agree that GNG does. Again, even in terms of GNG, this was approved by other independent editors in AfC before. (The draft which was approved can be seen in the talk page of the article). Lacklustre citations about family members and WP:SPS can all be easily edited away and deleted as opposed to deleting the entire article. What fellow editors may perceive as apparent synthesis can also be edited away. I also suggest fellow multilingual editors search Chinese-language sources on the subject using their Chinese name. There are many, and from major, national-level news sources such as The People's Daily, Xinhua News, etc. which may be unfamiliar to many in the West. Based on sources such as the subject's coverage in King's College London, their publications in independent journals and magazines with their own editorial boards such as The National Interest and Modern Diplomacy their work being further translated and cited by major news outlets such as Xinhua (all available and cited in the article), I argue that the article should be kept even if its at a significantly reduced length after further editing which removes all contentious material. Pangaion (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pangaion is the article creator. The article was accepted by AfC in November. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to find out what compelled you to start this article and if you disclosed any conflicts, since it looks like you started your account editing in several topics intermingled with the subject before starting the AfC. What is your connection to all of these topics? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Happy to answer your question, please bear with me. Yes, I disclosed all conflicts (there are none) and this was all cleared during WP:AfC. My connection to all these topics is that of a far-removed enthusiast. Interested in anything Asia-related, I began my profile editing the Royal Society of Arts page, then jumped into editing his mother's page, was surprised there wasn't an article about Smith on Wikipedia, created it, and continued branching out to related content from there. I also specifically went through the WP:AfC process to make sure it was reviewed using Wiki's standards. I've seen Smith on Chinese television, and my parents listen to his mother's music (I mentioned this during Afc), but my family and I have no relation to them whatsoever. I'm as close to the subject as the average Wikipedian is to the Queen of England. For context, Smith and his family are basically household names in China. A quick look at Wikipedia's counterpart in China, Baidu Baike, where he also has an article, shows it's been viewed over five hundred thousand times. Like many Chinese, I remember seeing his high school graduation getting broadcast on national television, his many appearances on CCTV, and recently his work being cited by the Chinese government as viable policy. (Not saying we should include or cite that anywhere since its original research, but I am saying the subject is clearly notable, especially in China and Asia.) Being on CCTV is like appearing on CNN in the U.S. or the BBC in Britain, and being cited by Xinhua and Reference News is like having your work put front-and-center in the Daily Telegraph, As someone who is of Chinese heritage myself, I'm used to the West being unaware of this, but its admittedly frustrating that subjects like Smith, who are well-known published experts in Asia are not included meaningfully in Western encyclopaedias like Wiki. On Wikipedia, I therefore aim to improve and include more Asian representation and Asia-related content through articles like this one while trying my best to adhere to our standards. Smith is far from the only subject I've covered in this area. See for example William Lindesay, another China-related person, or my other edits on Asian professors and politicians. I can be a bit overzealous about topics I am passionate about (who isn't), so I definitely welcome editing and chopping the article down. Now you know what compels me. Haha! Pangaion (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG, as suggested by, or it it "must" be kept, then this needs to be extensively edited of the promotional material and excessive detail, which is not usually allowed for a person with marginal notability. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am all for editing out excessive detail, disambiguating, and cutting out what could be perceived as promotional. We could even leave it as a stub if necessary, filling it in with more info as it becomes available. Pangaion (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, or redirect per suggestion of above editors. I don't see any evidence of GNG notability, and certainly there is no evidence of NPROF.  Looks to me like a case of WP:TOOSOON. , if you want to make a case for keeping this article, I suggest reading WP:THREE and following the advice there. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I took a look and actually agree that it seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. In this case, is there a way to perhaps move it back into draftspace again without deleting everything so the article can be worked on going forward? Pangaion (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how to best handle in the case where the discussion here ends in a redirect (as appears most likely), but I believe that the full page history will be preserved in that case. Perhaps the closing admin will be willing to give some advice. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * : Summon the ancient council! Pangaion (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete His Wikipedia page and his website (https://www.symingtonsmith.com) proudly boast of writing for a university conservative association newspaper (1828 journal). He is a master's student with a knack for self-promotion. I teach politics at a university and see this type of grift all the time. It is a remarkable stretch to call this person an "expert".Metalman andy (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's try to avoid any ad-hominem attacks on the subject. I think constructive suggestions within the context of Wikipedia would be better. For example, we could say the conservative association newspaper is a weak source, support deletion, and leave it at that, without accusing the subject of 'grift' or attacking their credentials. Pangaion (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, since I am arguing to keep the article, I think our strongest sources to support retention after robust editing are the following: One is from King's College London, which goes into detail, two from the National Association of Asian-American Professionals ; and one from Youth Service America, available here. Pangaion (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Devoke water  (talk)  13:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I did a quick search and can't see any way that this can pass WP:GNG.VocalIndia (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2021 (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.