Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Ya


 * 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   merge and redirect. WP:BLP1E concerns are more significantt than those in this discussion arguing for maintaining the status quo on the basis of the existence of similar material or having personal knowledge of the notability. Deletion appears to be regarded as an excessively blunt instrument here. A redirect should allow a merge to take place from the history Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Zhang Ya

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person is notable only for one event, as covered in the WP:BLP1E policy section. Most of the sources seem to use her as an example of internet vigilantism, not as a primary subject. Chick Bowen 16:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to internet vigilantism. WP:BLP1E says that we should cover the event not the person in cases like this. Your reasoning explains why this person possibly shouldn't have their own article, but it doesn't give a good reason to delete it completely. - Mgm|(talk) 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is not explicitly supported by policy--it is that this person's name would still be the redirect point and the location for the history. I also think the amount of information currently at internet vigilantism is sufficient and the level of detail provided in this article is unnecessary per WP:Undue weight.  If it is merged I think the best thing would be to move the history to a different title (such as Sichuan earthquake response controversy, or whatever), and merge only a small amount of the information.  Chick Bowen 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This "person's name" is all over the Internet, well known on every single Chinese forum and website. It is false to say that due to controversy, the identity is concealed; as the person's name is commonly found, it would be useless as to censor this here. It might even be of equivalence to names like Bill Gates and Tony Mokbel in regards to how well people know of the personality. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - why delete? This is a significant event in the Internet Culture in China, ask any Chinese netizen about it and they will know detail after detail of this incident. There was a similar article on Dog poop girl, which deals with a similar incident of vigilantism. The article is well sourced, well known of in China, and is indeed significant. Any deletion due to "uhh, never heard of this" is simply ignorance. The article is detailed and written by facts, as Mencius once said, "Why burn the house which is crafted with dedication?" Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 11:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article you mentioned was redirected as a result of Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination). It is currently being considered at WP:Deletion review. Chick Bowen 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Internet vigilantism. ₳dam   Zel  18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Is very infamous in China. I am from Sichuan and they don't like her, I know.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete = From WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Simple human decency suggests that this article needs to be removed.  This person is "famous" for one event, and will never be heard from again.  The article is full of defamations of her character from the people who replied to her on YouTube.  For the love of God, delete this article out of human decency.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider WP:NOTCENSORED. Regarding these defamations, they are well known, it is not like only two people know of them. The article doesn't say (for example) "Person A is a ...", but rather "Some have written that person A is a ...". Consider this - if "Joe Bloggs" was a famous investment banker, albeit a contraversial one, it is possible for there to be an article section on "public opinion" with sourced quotes? However, if you are that against the usage of examples of profanity, then by all means remove them. Don't sink the whole ship. Also please consider WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 08:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * QUOTE: "Simple human decency" - please explain. Looks to me like a Ignoratio elenchi (Irrelevant conclusion) fallacy. Also consider Wisdom of repugnance and Appeal to pity. The correlation of profaneness does not imply "indecency", see Correlation does not imply causation. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 10:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that keeping this article about a normal person who is involved in one single event and will never be heard from again is actively harmful to a living human being, which is against our BLP policies. If you choose to read that as a logical fallacy, then that says more about your argument than about my argument, I'm sorry to say.  Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not proscriptive, which means that if we start being sensible and actually deleting BPL1E biographies, then this will become the policy.  Doing anything other than this harms real people, which turns Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a forum for defamation.  Your statement about WP:NOTCENSORED is a non sequitur, because I'm not saying the article is offensive, I'm saying it harms a real person. Your second statement, the one full of wiki-links, is such a complete misreading of what I said that I don't see a reason to bother arguing against it. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that benlisquare's comment was aimed at your use of the phrase "simple human decency"—a concept which is inherently subjective, whose meaning varies from person to person and across time and cultures, and use of which constitutes an appeal to emotion. That being said, I happen to agree with your position regarding this article (i.e. that the subject of the article is a private person known only in connection for a single event and herself not notable (WP:BIO1E) and that continued, detailed coverage is harmful to the subject). –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article focuses more on the incident rather than being a biographical article. It is not entirely on the person. If you must, rename it to something similar to Internet controversy regarding the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake media publicity or something. Even if it is an inconsiderable biography, it can be considered as a significant Internet phenomena. Otherwise, you should also destroy Leeroy Jenkins, David Motari, Matt Harding, Cory Kennedy and Shakeel Bhat who are all insignificant internet "one-timers". Think about it, there are meaningless articles on Mudkips on Wikipedia, and they are permitted to exist? I am strongly against the deletion of Zhang Ya and until much more pointless articles are deletion prior, I will not succomb to allowing Zhang Ya to be deleted. However, I strongly believe that you are merely deleting this article due to your assumption that this event is insignificant when it is indeed not; this is an Argument from ignorance due to your own ideas and motivations. I do not know how much I need to stress how significant this event was politically (there have been reports from Government media regarding this), socially (regarding nationalism and public shaming) and in context with Internet in China. Simply stating that this article falls into the category of "articles that should be deleted" is a simple Association fallacy if one does not consider other options. An Argumentum ad populum would also be logically false in this predicament as many would only simply state that the article is "insignificant" simply because they have never heard of it (as most who have live on the other side of the world, where Wikipedia is blocked). I wouldn't be surprised if there were a larger majority voting for deletion; most of those who would have believed otherwise are unable to reach Wikipedia, due to government censorship. Would this also be an Appeal to authority over those who are able to make a decision? Again, if the biographical content does not suit your "requirements", then by all means allow it to be renamed and rewritten so that it does. Kindest regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 09:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename and rewrite: - how's this for a draft:

The contraversy regarding Internet hate speech regarding the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake is an online incident which occurred after the earthquake in 2008, where numerous brigades of nationalistic Chinese netizens attacked and publicly shamed a girl, known as "Liaoning Nǚ" (Chinese: 辽宁女, literally "Liaoning Girl"), over the Internet, after she had made claims regarding the media coverage of the earthquake which had caused anger among Chinese internet users. The incident was widely reported on Chinese websites, forums and even mainstream media.

Any suggestions? Kindest regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 11:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Internet vigilantism per WP:BLP1E. "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event," which is definitely the case here, "then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual ... and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy." If there is no consensus to merge, then move the article from its current title (to Liaoning Nǚ) since it is primarily not about Zhang Ya the person, but rather about about her video post and the reaction to it. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. No more reason to keep this than dog poop girl or YouTube cat abuse incident. -- samj in out 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, BLP violation.--Caspian blue 06:48, 17 March 2009 (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.