Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pu Zhongjie

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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. There is reasonable dissent about the sourcing that precludes this from being a clear keep, but the dissent is not strong enough to result in delete. Star Mississippi 19:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pu Zhongjie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pu Zhongjie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Prod was removed with a source that is a 1 line mention of Pu. Created by a single purpose editor. Google news has a mere 2 hits. Would reconsider if significant coverage can be found in Chinese. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. "Pu Zhongjie". China Daily. 2012-02-28. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.

      The article notes: "Pu Zhongjie, born in 1963, is a doctoral degree holder and has obtained the permanent residence permit of the United States. Dr. Pu founded Lepu Group Co Ltd in 1998 and serves as the chairman of the Board and General Manager. ... Dr. Pu is the director of the Chinese Society of Biotechnology (CSBT), vice president of the Interventional Engineering Committee of CSBT and the member of the Changping CPPCC committee."

    2. Li, Yihe 李奕和 (2022-10-31). "乐普系分拆心泰医疗IPO，蒲忠杰难以摆脱"自家生意"，依赖关联交易，增收不增利，上半年纯利下降42%" [The spin-off of Lepu's subsidiary, Xintai Medical, for its IPO sees Pu Zhongjie struggling to break free from "family business" ties, relying on related transactions. While revenue has increased, profits have not, with a 42% decline in net profit in the first half of the year.]. 乐居财经 [Leju Caijing] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "从校服到婚纱，蒲忠杰和妻子张月娥不仅是生意场上最得意的合作伙伴，二者还是同窗校友。蒲忠杰毕业于西安交通大学金属材料专业，在校期间结识了同专业的张月娥，此后结成连理。1999年6月，已获博士学位的蒲忠杰在国外求学期间接触了心脏支架研发的工作后，毅然回国，与妻子张月娥创立了乐普医疗。2009年，乐普医疗作为首批28家公司之一，登陆创业板，一举成为A股“心血管第一股”。"

      From Google Translate: "From school uniforms to wedding dresses, Pu Zhongjie and his wife Zhang Yue'e are not only the most proud partners in the business world, but also classmates. Pu Zhongjie graduated from Xi'an Jiaotong University with a degree in metal materials. During his time at school, he met Zhang Yue'e, who was also a student in the same major, and they later got married. In June 1999, after Pu Zhongjie, who had obtained a doctorate degree, came into contact with the research and development of heart stents while studying abroad, he resolutely returned to China and founded Lepu Medical with his wife Zhang Yue'e. In 2009, Lepu Medical was listed on the Growth Enterprise Market as one of the first 28 companies, becoming the "first cardiovascular stock" in the A-share market."

    3. "创业板被指为"造富机器" 年产亿万富豪500位" [The ChiNext board is labeled a "wealth creation machine," producing 500 billionaires annually.]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). 2010-10-26. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01 – via China News Service.

      The article notes: "蒲忠杰 1963年出生。乐普医疗总经理。持股市值：66.40亿元。历任北京钢铁研究总院高级工程师，美国佛罗里达国际大学研究助理，美国WP医疗科技公司技术副总经理。他曾参与设计50余项专利，并发表15篇科研文章。1998年，蒲忠杰创办乐蒲集团。与其他创业板富豪榜相比，蒲忠杰是唯一的非实际控制人富豪，纯属“技术投资”。"

      From Google Translate: "Pu Zhongjie was born in 1963. He is the general manager of Lepu Medical. Shareholding value: 6.64 billion yuan. He served as a senior engineer at the Beijing Iron and Steel Research Institute, a research assistant at Florida International University, and the technical deputy general manager of WP Medical Technology Company in the United States. He has participated in the design of more than 50 patents and published 15 scientific research articles. In 1998, Pu Zhongjie founded Lepu Group. Compared with other GEM rich lists, Pu Zhongjie is the only rich man who is not the actual controller, and is purely a "technical investment"."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pu Zhongjie (Chinese: 蒲忠杰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    China Daily isn't a RS, I wouldn't count most of those, they seem to be regurgitated Communist Party news items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Still a delete. Even with the Cunard sources, they still don't have coverage in RS... China Daily is the mouthpiece of the CCP, and most of those given below appear to rehash the same "press release" for lack of a better term. I don't much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources were published in 2010, 2012, and 2022. How do sources published years apart rehash the "same press release"? What press release are you referring to? I did not find any such press releases. Regarding the China Daily article, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily was closed as (bolding added for emphasis):

      In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.

      This is similar to the consensus at WP:XINHUA, which says, "There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency 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."

      Pu Zhongjie is not a political topic so the China Daily source is suficiently reliable for factual reporting about him. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It's more than likely propaganda, they're trying to hype up the individual for commercial purposes. I'd prefer better sourcing before changing my !vote. You've got 5 marginal sources, if we had one or two RS and these, it would be different. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are no articles about this Doctor in Gscholar either, I'd expect something if we want to establish medical notability... Otherwise, this is a business person. And 849th richest person isn't notable. Head of a biomedical company could be notable, but the company doesn't seem to be. Having worked in the US isn't terribly notable, the rest is confirmation of how me met his wife, where he went to school. That's simply biographical, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding "It's more than likely propaganda, they're trying to hype up the individual for commercial purposes", there is no commercial incentive for the China Daily, The Beijing News, or Leju Caijing to "hype up" Pu Zhongjie. These three sources are all independent of him and his company. As one editor wrote at a Xinhua RSN discussion (my bolding; the numbering is based on the legend here):

      Option 1-2 in general; Option 1 for establishing notability; Option 3 for politics and international relations. I think Xinhua is most problematic when discussing political matters, and any instance of it should be attributed (if used at all). However, given that all mainstream media in mainland China is CCP-influenced, declaring all of them unreliable would have the effect of requiring subjects from China to receive significant coverage using only international sources to be considered notable, leading to systematic bias. As long as it's not making any exceptional or controversial claims, I think Xinhua is reliable for domestic non-political reporting.

      All domestic mainstream media sources in mainland China are influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. There would be significant systemic bias if influential domestic publications like the China Daily and The Beijing News are not considered sufficiently reliable to establish notability.

      The subject does not derive his notability from having a doctorate, from medical notability, from being one of the "richest" people, from being head of a biomedical company, or from having worked in the US.

      The subject derives his notability from passing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

      The sources cover not just his business career but also his personal life. This bolsters his notability as it shows the sources thought it was important to cover different facets of his life. The significant coverage allows the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. No policy or guideline excludes content "that's simply biographical, not notable" from contributing to significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      But I'm not sure why he's notable. 800th richest person isn't that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      800th richest person isn't that. No one has supported retention based on Pu Zhongjie's ranking on the richest persons list.

      But I'm not sure why he's notable. He is notable for passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through receiving significant coverage in sufficiently reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      He is notable for passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through receiving significant coverage in sufficiently reliable sources.. That is the objective of the AfD, to determine it meets that, so no need to requote guidelines that experienced editors know. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I requoted the appropriate notability guidelines to follow because one AfD participant supported deletion on the basis of this businessperson not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) while another AfD participant asked "I'm not sure why he is notable". Cunard (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, and this topic received significant coverage, as found by User:Cunard. In my opinion, China Daily is not reliable for political reports, but it can be reliable for other topics. It seems like some users are trying to invoke WP:IDONTLIKE. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pu_Zhongjie&oldid=1253190076"