Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Sichao (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Wang Sichao
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The previous deletion discussion from 2005 was closed as No Consensus, although the rationales for 'keep' were thin. WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage of the subject in WP:RS. There are only three sources in the article; one does not mention the subject, and another is (at best) of marginal reliability. The lack of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources renders the subject non-notable per WP:N (specifically WP:SIGCOV). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * delete. The Chinese version of this article is far more complete, and provides a more complete overview of his life and career. But I think it just makes it clearer the subject is not notable (by en.wp criteria), as it does not really provide any additional indication of anything that would establish notability.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D1BD:8D95:FCC3:8AB8 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not rise to the level of WP:PROF, certainly, and I am surprised to find that it doesn't rise to WP:BIO either and, due to WP:SENSATION, not really WP:GNG. Yeah, this probably deserves to be removed. We just can't write a good article on the subject owing to the way these mentions have happened. jps (talk)
 * Keep Meets WP:BASIC based off the following (title & author translations are from Google Translate):
 * Various obituaries that have coverage of his achievements:
 * A few profiles in Chinese media:
 * Jumpytoo Talk 23:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment From WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable [and] intellectually independent of each other At least three of the four sources mentioned immediately above by Jumpytoo are not independent, reliable secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other, and thus they do not, as claimed, meet WP:BASIC. Specifically: China News Service is state-owned and "involved in targeted disinformation and propaganda campaigns" (sourced on the enWiki page); "The Paper" is run by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is state-owned and operates as a "foreign mission" of the Chinese government (sourced on the enWiki page); the Qianjiang Evening News, is state-owned. The cas.cn source could not be evaluated by me, but it seems a reasonable assumption that any media outlet with the .cn top-level domain is, by definition, state-owned. Even if sources owned and operated by the Chinese government could be considered reliable for anything, there is no basis for considering them to be intellectually independent. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a few issues with your argument:
 * 1. From this any media outlet with the .cn top-level domain is, by definition, state-owned, you seem to believe all Chinese media are not reliable. The consensus at WP:RSN and WP:RSP has consistently said that most Chinese outlets are reliable when they are not discussing a topic the CCP considers controversial (see WP:XINHUA, China Daily, Sixth Tone (which I consider the English equivalent of The Paper, owned by same part of government)), and this person is not considered controversial. I would also like to note the context omitted in your quote of China News Service, specially you omitted According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, CNS was involved in targeted disinformation and propaganda campaigns, which a RfC on WP:RSN just closed noting that Editors consider ASPI to be a biased or opinionated source that is reliable in its area of expertise but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia, the Australian Government and the US State Department (boldings are mine). And regardless, the CNS source is from 2016, which predates the issues noted by the think tank (which happened in 2019). If we use your idea that all Chinese media is unreliable, this would impose a standard of requiring international notability for any article relating to China, which is a ridiculous standard not applied anywhere else and a clear example or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.
 * 2.You are misunderstanding what intellectually independent means. To quote the guideline, Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not.. This would for example cover the obituaries I gave (which is why I provided 4 sources, not WP:THREE, as the first 2 sources only count as 1 for notability), but not the profiles as reading the articles even through Google Translate will show they were written independently of each other and the profiles both contain content that are not in the other article. An analogy would be saying two articles written 3 years apart by different authors that both contain facts not discussed in the other don't have intellectual independence because they were both posted in the NY Times. Jumpytoo Talk 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you suppose this subject is not controversial? It is a bit weird to argue that UFO beliefs (which seem to be the primary interest of the sources you propose) are uncontroversial. On the basis of WP:SENSATION, we would probably reject the WP:FRINGEBLP as the sources don't seem (for whatever reason) to be bothered by the fact that his arguments are woolly to the extreme. jps (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could of used better wording there, was referring to the "political sensitiveness" of the topic when considering if Chinese state media would be unreliable for reporting, and in terms of that he is not controversial. I can see evaluating SENSATION and FRINGEBLP based of his public belief of aliens, however the China News Service and China Science Daily sources have most of their coverage on non-fringey topics (specifically, CNS only talks about his meteorite detection & collision research, and the CSD source has the first 2/3rds talk about his meteorite research, and determining human-related causes for UFOs) such that an article can still be written based off non-fringe content. Jumpytoo Talk 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually think that some of the meteorite detection and collision research may be WP:FRINGE as well, but it is hard for me to judge because of my inability to interact with the sources. Do you think it possible to provide a rewrite of the stub to illustrate what you think could happen here if the article were kept? jps (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2.You are misunderstanding what intellectually independent means. To quote the guideline, Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not.. This would for example cover the obituaries I gave (which is why I provided 4 sources, not WP:THREE, as the first 2 sources only count as 1 for notability), but not the profiles as reading the articles even through Google Translate will show they were written independently of each other and the profiles both contain content that are not in the other article. An analogy would be saying two articles written 3 years apart by different authors that both contain facts not discussed in the other don't have intellectual independence because they were both posted in the NY Times. Jumpytoo Talk 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you suppose this subject is not controversial? It is a bit weird to argue that UFO beliefs (which seem to be the primary interest of the sources you propose) are uncontroversial. On the basis of WP:SENSATION, we would probably reject the WP:FRINGEBLP as the sources don't seem (for whatever reason) to be bothered by the fact that his arguments are woolly to the extreme. jps (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could of used better wording there, was referring to the "political sensitiveness" of the topic when considering if Chinese state media would be unreliable for reporting, and in terms of that he is not controversial. I can see evaluating SENSATION and FRINGEBLP based of his public belief of aliens, however the China News Service and China Science Daily sources have most of their coverage on non-fringey topics (specifically, CNS only talks about his meteorite detection & collision research, and the CSD source has the first 2/3rds talk about his meteorite research, and determining human-related causes for UFOs) such that an article can still be written based off non-fringe content. Jumpytoo Talk 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually think that some of the meteorite detection and collision research may be WP:FRINGE as well, but it is hard for me to judge because of my inability to interact with the sources. Do you think it possible to provide a rewrite of the stub to illustrate what you think could happen here if the article were kept? jps (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by. There is significant biographical coverage of the subject from a Google Translate of the 2016 China News Service article: "Wang Sichao, originally from Guangzhou, Guangdong, was born in Rongxian County, Guangxi. He studied in Zhongshan University and Primary School, South China Normal University in his childhood. He was admitted to the Physics Department of Peking University in 1957, and was assigned to Zijinshan, Chinese Academy of Sciences in 1963. Worked in the Planetary Research Laboratory of the Observatory, and successively served as research intern, assistant researcher, associate researcher, researcher, etc. Retired honorably in 1999. Researcher Wang Sichao is one of the pioneers of meteorological research in China. He and Academician Ouyang Ziyuan have conducted in-depth and systematic studies on the meteorite rain that occurred in Jilin and achieved important results. He traveled long distances to the Qinling Mountains to inspect the Ningqiang meteorite crash site, collect meteorite samples, and then conduct in-depth research to find out the composition of this rare carbonaceous chondrite. He also enthusiastically participated in the study of Wuxi Climbing Ice." There is significant biographical coverage of the subject from a Google Translate of the 2013 China Science Daily article: "Wang Sichao is one of the earliest meteorite researchers in China's astronomical world. In 1963, he graduated from Peking University with a major in astrophysics and then joined the Purple Mountain Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He has been 'unconventional' in meteorite research for many years. At that time, Wang Sichao, who was still a little experienced, firmly believed that the origin of the solar system should be studied from the original sample of the solar system-meteorite experimental analysis. Get started. For this reason, he has received much criticism. In order to prove his theory, Wang Sichao often travels alone to look for valuable meteorites in mountainous areas. Fortunately, the carbonaceous chondrite collected by him, Shaanxi Ningqiang meteorite, was identified and found to contain a wealth of important information about the birth of the solar system, and found the factual basis for the impact of supernovae on the formation of the solar system." From WP:XINHUA: "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua." I will apply the Xinhua source analysis standard to the Chinese government-owned or affiliated sources listed here. Regarding the coverage of Wang Sichao, I do not see "a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation". The sources cover Wang Sichao in the context of his work as an astronomer. I consider them reliable. I strongly agree with Jumpytoo's statement: "If we use your idea that all Chinese media is unreliable, this would impose a standard of requiring international notability for any article relating to China, which is a ridiculous standard not applied anywhere else and a clear example or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wang Sichao to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 
 * Delete As per jps. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think these sources help us write a biography. What is "unconventional" about his studies? Incidentally, he doesn't really have many publications or sources that I can find which identify his studies beyond "he went here, he said this" which is a WP:REDFLAG for me when trying to properly contextualize claims. I don't know how to write this biography and the sources proposed do little to inspire confidence. What I would love to see would be a person arguing for keep rewrite the biography to conform to our standards. jps (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:A7. While I agree with and  that the subject passes WP:BASIC per the Chinese language sources, currently there is no strong claim to notability written in the prose of the article itself. As such, it could be speedy deleted unless someone actually writes about why this particular researcher is important and what his actual work/research entailed.  At the moment the article mainly focuses on a spurious critique of Stephen Hawking's speculations on man's potential encounter with extraterrestrials. This seems trivial rather than encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bravo . I scratched my delete vote above. Keep per WP:HEY. Subject passes WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: per HEY. Article has been significant rewritten since nom. – robertsky (talk) 21:35, 1 November 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.