Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tang Huawei


 * 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this defaults to keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Tang Huawei

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Google news doesn't seem to have any references except this source, which I am not sure if it is reliable. A general Google search reveals links such as, , which seem to be connected to a certain "LYYF Visual Arts Center" who have been apparently using multiple accounts (Lyyf2015,Tang-Studio Huawei,Tang Huawei Studio) to try to get this article on Wikipedia. Even if I set aside the COI, I am not convinced that the artist is notable enough. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Previously created as Huawei Tang. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERNOM. North America1000 06:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I went, I saw. See below. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This is a high-profile Chinese artist. Googling his Chinese name returns 70,000 results, including in-depth coverage from some of China's largest news portals, such as Sohu and Sina. A study of his works has been published in one of China's leading art journals, see this, and his art was exhibited during the Milan World Expo . -Zanhe (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in view of the sources mentioned above such as cul.sohu.com and cnki.com which enable WP:GNG to be passed, as well as having his paintings shown at the Milan World Expo. The nom is right about the COI, so it needs npov checks after any changes by the named editors, although their use of usernames show they weren't trying to deceive anyone. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I see a number of fishy things with this article and the claims. 1. All google searches for the "Milan World Art Expo" lead to results where Google says "this site may harm your computer". The Venice Biennale site does not do that, for example. 2. The touring shows mentioned in Singapore and Taiwan are actually dealer shows. You get into them if you have a dealer and they think they can sell your work for money, not because you are a good artist or a notable one. 3. Both refs in the article lead to a list of the dealers, not the artist at hand. 4. On what planet is someone famous in China, with 70,000 search results, but unknown in the West, with ONE search result? I guess there was actually Sixto_Rodriguez, who was famous in South Africa, but unknown in North America. In any case, I think there is a LOT to be dubious about here. I am sticking with delete until there is some clear proof. Also, if you know anything about the history of painting, and even if you don't (and simply have functioning eyes), this page may seal the deal on noatability for you. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who specializes in Chinese biographies, I can assure you that there are tons of famous people in China who are virtually unknown in the West. In a sense China IS another planet, mainly due to the language barrier. Even so, there are many more than one search result in English for Tang Huawei (see Google results). Unfortunately, his name is not spelled consistently in English (Tang Huawei, Tang Hua Wei, Huawei Tang, etc.), which makes searching more difficult. In any case, the Chinese sources I listed above are indisputably reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying and I appreciate your expertise! I actually spent time in China in 1989 and can corroborate the 'other world' feeling. But back to the search results. I'm not sure why I thought there was only one result: there are about a dozen in the the Google link you pasted above. However the first eleven are very low quality: I see only links from his dealer (LYYFT), from the Milan EXPO, and from other commercial entities or blogs. The twelfth link is from a company that makes knock-off oil paintings. There are no results that are independent of commercial goals. No independent essays. No Musueum mentions, no independent gallery mentions. It's 100% commercial. Now, he might make notability from being in the Chinese pavillion at the Milan Expo-- that was a significant curated show. However, there really is a disconnect between the work I am seeing, the lack of references and critical wriitng, the large number of commercial or dealer links (as oposed to museum announcements or critical writing) in the Google results, and his apparent fame in China. I'm still not buying it, as I there is something fishy going on, possibly promotional, as the nominator correctly detected! If he is really that notable, we should have been able to find something like this to show he is. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I did a Google search of his Chinese name. The 70,000 results is misleading in my opinion. If you navigate to page 16 of the results, it only shows 156 distinct results. Even out of the 156 results, I believe there are many which are not about this artist (for example ,,, , , ,,, are clearly false positives). The Sohu link is simply about an exhibition (from 20-24 Jan) in Singapore, whose notability I doubt, considering that the Singaporean press has not reported it. I am finding it a bit hard to believe that the artist is notable enough for an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, some of the 70,000 results are false positives. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is in-depth coverage from major news portals such as Sohu and Sina, as well as the academic clearinghouse CNKI (similar to jstor). The Sohu link is not just about his exhibition, but also includes a bio of the artist. In any case, the fact that the exhibition is reported in China's national media proves his notability per WP:ARTIST. -Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How is the sohu link considered a report by "China's national media"? Anyone nowadays can run an ad on sohu or sina in the guise of news. Clearly the article is NOT independent. Besides it doesn't make any sense when the exhibition is in Singapore but the "news report" is in China. Timmyshin (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop making baseless claims like this, which you've done before, unless you have solid evidence to back it up. -Zanhe (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh the irony. According to you, Contemporary Oil Painting, published by Tang's own art center, is a "peer-reviewed journal" and "one of China's leading art journals". Clearly you don't know what "baseless claim" means, you're just salty. I'm not the only person who recognizes that the SOHU article is not independent. Timmyshin (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The way that you have counted Google hits is invalid. When displaying results Google first truncates the list to 1,000 entries and then eliminates duplicates among those, so no search for any subject will display more than 1,000 results. For example a search for "Barack Obama" only returns 268 results by your method of counting. This is one of the many reasons why counting Google hits is a very bad way of determining notability or otherwise. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete So he is a Chinese guy, who was born, made contributions to oil painting and traveled for exhibition. So do many people. This does not make him notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Further references does not satisfy WP:NEXIST.Flawedaddiction (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not valid reasoning. You've completely ignored the evidence presented above that he has received in-depth reporting from multiple Chinese national media outlets, and has been the subject of academic study published in a peer-reviewed journal. -Zanhe (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails WP:GNG IMO despite contrary opinions expressed above. Quis separabit?  01:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way do you believe that the sources linked above by Zanhe fail to get this through WP:GNG? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't read Chinese, but even using Google Translate, I can see enough from the sources provided above that the subject easily surpasses our general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I can only scratch/bang my head that this Afd has dragged on for 13 days without anyone thinking to adding this to the China deletion sorting list. Hello? I would urge that this be relisted once more so as to allow sufficient time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. Thanks for doing what I should have done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've reviewed the sources given by Zanhe and also performed an internet search myself. I agree with Zanhe that the sources confer sufficient notability. There are reviews from art critics and other contemporary artists, some including substantial biographical content. The fuss about low-quality sources and false positives is irrelevant. Deryck C. 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me expand a bit on my "irrelevant" comment. It seems to me that many of the proponents of deletion have gone out to search for sources themselves, then went on to criticise the sources they have found as low-quality. That's just attacking a strawman. I have yet to see a convincing argument why the sources provided by Zanhe do not add up to sufficient notability. Deryck C. 00:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements, current information is not convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  23:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What are your reasons for dismissing the sources found above as not convincing? Do they not constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources? If they don't, then please don't keep us in the dark about which arm(s) of "significant coverage", "independent" and "reliable" they fail to meet, and why. Or is this just one more of your very frequent drive-by comments in deletion discussions that make no attempt at taking account of the previous discussion? These are supposed to be discussions, not collections of disconnected comments. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep My personal rule of thumb for "multiple" coverage in reliable sources is three, and the strongest refs that Zanhe has linked to do meet that, from what I can see. I'm also persuaded by Deryck Chan's !vote, coming from an editor who is both an administrator here, and fluent in the language. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving to neutral. Looking at the ongoing discussion, there are wheels within wheels of this thing. Refs aren't what they seem, in some cases. I really don't know. I do think if Deryck Chan feels this challenging of sources is irrelevant, he may want to wade in again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the sources Zanhe provided is independent, just like this article on WP. The SINA article has no author, and is most likely written by himself or his family considering the heavily promotional tone and mentions of his personality and hobbies. The SOHU page is about a non-notable exhibition in Singapore, and the first paragraph was by the exhibition's organizer. The first sentence of the CNKI article reads "Tang Huawei is a long-time friend of mine"... All I know is that the person exists and he has traveled internationally for exhibitions, but I fail to see which of the 4 criteria in WP:ARTIST he meets. Timmyshin (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous to claim an article from a major news outlet like Sina to be non-independent merely because the author's name is unknown. Many news outlets do not disclose their reporters' names, especially in China, but also prestigious Western publications like The Economist. Besides, you conveniently forgot to mention that the Sohu bio is attributed to a named editor, Zhao Benjun. The CNKI article's author does disclose his friendship with Tang, but that does not change the fact that it was accepted for publication, and there are also articles written by others, such as this. I hope it's a coincidence, but the timing of your opposition seems suspiciously close to my opposition to your proposed deletions here. -Zanhe (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that the article from Sina seems to be user submitted. (I have seen this happen in other news portals as well, particularly Yahoo News and Forbes which sometimes reprint press releases/promotional content). In such cases, the source is not considered independent. My biggest red-flag is this supposed exhibition in Singapore which was not reported in any Singaporean media, but was reported in China. Consider that the exhibition claims to have taken place at the Marina Bay Sands (a sufficiently high profile area in Singapore). Taking into account that Singapore is a city state, it is highly unlikely that an important art exhibition would not make it to Singaporean press. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See pictures from the exhibition. I hope you're not implying he's a fraudster who made up all this stuff. -Zanhe (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is NOT an art exhibition. It is a commercial art fair called Art Stage Singapore, where galleries pay to exhibit their works. Tang Huawei's gallery, LYYF Visual Art Centre (owned by him as well), participated in this art fair (one of the 173 galleries participating). This is not a curated exhibition. I'm not implying that the article subject is a fraud. Just that he is not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is ridiculous if you call this sina article a "news report". This page is a perfect example Sina runs very obviously self-promotional pieces (presumably after receiving payments). Both CNKI articles were published on a journal called Contemporary Oil Painting (当代油画), which is published by a "LYYF Visual Art Center" (龙吟雅风视觉艺术中心). Notice this English article was created by a User:Lyyf2015. Coincidence? Guess who founded "LYYF Visual Art Center"? See for yourself. You may be able to fool a few editors who can't read Chinese or who did not examine the sources carefully, but it stops here. User:Lemongirl942's hunch and User:HappyValleyEditor's research are both dead on. Finally I would suggest that you stay on topic, the last comments makes you seem salty. Timmyshin (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the original author(s) are likely connected to the artist, but the article has been scrubbed of its promotional content, and I've deleted all copyrighted paintings uploaded by them. Now, Sina Collection runs an entire special section about him, and I don't need to "fool" people who cannot read Chinese, several articles on the site are available in English: one by Sun Yat-sen University professor Yang Xiaoyan, and another by Renmin University professor Xia Kejun . He is also featured on the website of Liu Yiqian, the famous art collector who founded the Long Museum: . Of course this could all be an elaborate scam involving China's two largest web portals, one of world's most high profile art collectors, and multiple professors from prestigious universities, but without concrete evidence of that, we'd have to admit that these count as WP:significant coverage. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does the website of Liu Yiqian say "Copyright © 1996-2015 SINA Corporation"? Every link I am seeing is somehow linked to SINA. I would be glad if someone can show me coverage in mainstream Chinese media, Xinhua for instance. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sina is the owner of Sina Weibo and hosts lots of celebrity websites. However, Sohu is one of the main competitors of Sina, and neither is Douban connected to Sina AFAIK. You're setting the bar too high: Sina is mainstream media, and being covered on government media like Xinhua is not a requirement of WP:GNG (although as consolation, an article written by Tang about his teacher Feng Fasi is featured on the website of the National Art Museum of China ). -Zanhe (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG requires reliable sources to be independent of the subject. Again, the Sohu link reads like a press release (about participation in an "art fair" in Singapore (a dealer show) NOT an art exhibition). A press release is clearly not an independent source. I checked out the links at Douban, but Douban is a WP:SPS where anyone can submit information, and indeed the content is largely a copy paste from other sites. The article on the website of National Art Museum of China is written by him, NOT about him. (Had this article been written about him, I would have concluded that he was notable). But this is not the case here. Unfortunately, I see neither WP:GNG being satisfied nor WP:ARTIST --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Douban link is also written by him. The Liu Yiqian link is just copied-pasted from the sina promotional piece. As for the 2 bilingual articles written by university faculties that are published in the same SINA SPECIAL SECTION, let's examine them in details. Since they both contained English translations (why if not for promotional purposes?) I can simply highlight excerpts for all to see: From this one by Yang Xiaoyan: "In practice, he found that there are some natural and delightful relationship between body movement and hand movement, and painting is an extremely occasional process to comprehensively allocate the strength of all body parts. This discovery pleasantly surprised him, since he understands that painting is generated in this way..." From this one by Xia Kejun: "Chinese artist Tang Huawei has been “lonely and tenacious” for years, to awaken the soul of nature with his unique artistic language.... Having received strict realistic training and seriously contemplated on art history, he returned his artistic creation to zero, a complete “resetting,” in order to re-select his artistic path, re-establish his unique cognition and language system." Independent art reviews or paid promotional piece (probably even written by Tang himself and simply signed by the professors, just like 90% of Chinese students applying for graduate school in the West)? You be the judge. Timmyshin (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Time to end this? It's been 15 days. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. If you want it to be closed as a no consensus keep, which is what it would be, I think. It's only been delsorted in the China discussion for two days. What's the hurry? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, keep the page so the trolls/socks User talk:Lyyf2015, User talk:Tang-Studio Huawei, User talk:Tang Huawei Studio are all happy, open the floodgate for all mediocre Chinese artists to have their pages on en.wiki, and turn wiki into a laughing stock/promo depot. But I do agree that some of the truth-stretching arguments above have wasted enough people's time already. Timmyshin (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the latter two are not going to be happy: they've been blocked, for some time now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - There're secondary sources to establish notability. STSC (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if you could point out some of these secondary sources. Please note that these should be reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and should not be promotional stuff like we have seen above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A graphic review by Sylvie Samani: . Also, Tang's exhibition in Milan Expo 2015 should satisfy this requirement - "The person's work (or works) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". STSC (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More sources:, , , , , , etc. STSC (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these sources are either WP:SPS, affiliated to the subject or reprints of press releases. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree; you'll have to prove that they are not reliable secondary sources. STSC (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The source about the Milan Expo is from a gallery owned by the subject. Even if I just assume it is true, it doesn't seem like his work was a substantial part of the exhibition. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is being a "substantial part" is debatable; Tang didn't just have a single picture displayed, he actually had a personal gallery in that exhibition, I think that is quite a substantial part. STSC (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first and main problem is that the source is the website of a gallery owned by Tang Huawei. Any claims need to be properly verified. The second point, the source mentions small solo exhibition for Tang Huawei. The third point is this sentence held jointly by the ... LYYF visual arts center ... which suggests that his arts centre was involved. None of these help to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. I would like to see independent and reliable secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting it might be a fake event? Of course his arts centre was involved to exhibit his work. We are evaluating whether his work was a substantial part in the event. STSC (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first and foremost requirement in WP:N is reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this condition is not met by the source, I wouldn't even proceed to examine the claims. The source you gave is a website of the art gallery owned by him. If this exhibition is notable and he played a significant part, please try finding a source in the Chinese government owned media. Surely, the government must have reported this event and about Tang Huawei's participation if it is, as it claims, representing the country's pavilion and is an important exhibition. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The primary source is only used here to inform you one thing: he had an exhibition in Expo. That is a fact, not a claim. I'm saying his exhibition in Expo would satisfy WP:ARTIST. STSC (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a "fact". For it to be a "fact" it needs to be verified by other reliable sources independent of the subject. Till that time, it is simply a "claim". Tang Huawei saying that "his work was a significant part of a notable exhibition" is simply a claim, unless other independent sources verify it and report it. Till that time, the question of his satisfying WP:ARTIST doesn't arise. (To explain further, any artist can claim on their website that their works are part of permanent collections in many museums. Unless this is verified by a reliable and independent secondary source, we wouldn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST based on this claim). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We can evaluate whether "significant" and "substantial" apply to his exhibition but to dispute whether the exhibition has taken place is rather extreme.  STSC (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm simply saying that when evaluating notability, we only look at reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. Any other sources are meaningless. And also this source is just a listing of an exhibition and seems to have been written by the curator himself. We need an independent source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your rationale, though I think your threshold for "independent" is unnecessarily high. I think most of the news articles given by Zanhe and STSC are good enough to be "independent reliable". Deryck C. 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2016 (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.