Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang sicong

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wang sicong

edit


Wang sicong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wang Sicong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

I'm not convinced of the notability of this person. The article has twice been deleted under A7, my CSD tag was removed from the third recreation by an IP who added some references. There still doesn't seem to be much assertion of significance other than he is the son of a rich person. All the references I can find seem to be passing mentions in relation to his father, or trivial tabloid stuff in the likes of the Daily Mail. I don't think there is enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I would be fine with a redirect to Wang Jianlin but would prefer that it be deleted first. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEPFirst of all I rescued this page form several bad deletion notices. There are six pages of Google results that talk about this person in various capacities: Fuerdai, playboy, venture capitalist etc. I am in the West, and I see a whole lot of western editors dead set on having this deleted. Not sure why, but I think it would be wise to examine your own reasoning and assumptions. The guy has a Bloomberg profile! Forbes. Irish Times! Many, many more good refs. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 104.163.141.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I am in the West, and I see a whole lot of western editors dead set on having this deleted No, there is no such conspiracy by Western editors. I am from Singapore and yes, I also want it deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the creator for spamming This is nothing but spamming. A playboy son of a millionaire doesn't become notable simply because he is the son of the richest man in PRC. (WP:NOTINHERITED applies). The sourcing is also terrible. That "Forbes profile" doesn't work. This Bloomberg is a directory listing. And a trashy daily mail source. Please no. I would have been OK with a redirect, but this must be deleted first. Also Wang Sicong might need to be protected. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERIT. As other users have said, the subject does not become notable because their father is rich. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP 王思聪是中国大陆的富二代人物，在中国的大陆是非常有名的人物。wang is a famous figure in china in chinese news, the following links:

if anyone cant read chinese news , please use google translation service !

  • With respect, The refs are good. I just added another Forbes ref that spends two or three paragraphs discussing his company Prometheus capital. He is apparently famous in China, but I do not read Chinese. The CHinese editor who started the article is ading refs so this may perhaps help. There is a huge abundance of sources here that clearly deterine notability. BBC Interview, Forbes, Bloomberg profile. Yes he is the son, but on his OWN he has reveived a huge amount of press, both as a business person and as the "face of" the fuerdai-- the overly moneyed second generation children in China. Gross, tyes, but also notable. To simply reject him as the son of a rich person is to ignore the significance of this person, and to place your own personal prejudices against "rich kids" at the fore.The discussion should be added to the China -related discussions. The HUGE abundance of refs speak for themselves. Those voting WP:NOTINHERITED have perhaps not read the refs closely.104.163.141.133 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How abotu a BBC interview and dozens of pages if individual articles on the person? Many many people are in wikipedia with much less coverage.104.163.141.133 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem where is a Eurocentric western view, in addition to the fact that the people nominating the guy for deletion have not bothered to research the individual. You are all just going on not intherited, rahter than performing proper research.104.163.141.133 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty brief coverage - count how many sentences are actually about the subject. Notability on Wikipedia is different from notability in general. On Wikipedia it is simply a measure used to determine if the information is covered in a new article or if it can be covered somewhere else. The article (in its current form) is essentially a WP:PSEUDO. The reason for our notability guidelines is WP:WHYN -so that we can write a good article about the subject without violating WP:UNDUE and including insignificant events. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNBC article says : " Built by 28-year-old Wang Sicong, better known as the son of Chinese real estate billionaire Wang Jianlin, the 3.4 billion yuan ($516 million) Wanda Reign on the Bund hotel was designed by award winning British architect, Norman Robert Foster. While Wang the younger has long been in the public eye, it wasn't necessarily for any previous signs of business acumen."104.163.141.133 (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was the subject of an EDITORIAL in Xinhua. As in XINHUA, STATE NEWSPAPER OF CHINA. Readership: hundreds of millions of people. "Xinhua is regarded as the most influential media outlet in China as almost every newspaper in China relies on Xinhua feeds for content."(Wikipedia) The state of China specifically published an editorial in their state newspaper to rebuke Wang Sicung's lifestyle. That makes him notable on its own. See life section of article for CNBC source. This is a particularly silly deletion discussion that is rooted in people not doing the proper research, and instead "sticking to their guns". Time to drop the stick folks. Xinhua. Editorial. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your issue is the same one that the STATE OF CHINA (population 1.5 billion?) had, which is why the State of China took time out to rebuke the (apparently non-notable) article subject in an editorial. WP:NOTNEWS is just another attempt to kill the article; his statments and the response by the state media are very notable and they are the epitome of news. The guy is notable in the extreme. Not for the best reasons, but he is notable. Drop the stick. You're hanging onto this because you don't like to be wrong. The references here are enormous and notability is VERY CLEARLY established. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage doesn't guarantee notability - the quality of coverage matters. Simply because Xinhua rebuked a guy (for being a millionaire's son and making those remarks) doesn't make the person notable. Also Xinhua is a potentially unreliable source. Good quality secondary coverage is something like this. It summarises the subject's achievements. The quality of sources you are providing is either brief coverage in context of something else or tabloidy news. Please also see WP:NOPAGE - we don't create a new article unless the coverage about the subject is so large that it cannot be covered elsewhere. If we remove all the WP:UNDUE parts, all we are left is that he is the son of the millionaire and he also owns a company. That can easily be mentioned in the article of his father. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the reasoning you have been using is just not rational. Drop the stick. Have a nice day. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTWORD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources may attack his activities, but that is the crux of his notability as the face of the fuerdai. As to depth established by sources, it is perfectly acceptable to have multiple sources to establish coverage. Together the sources talk about his family, birth, birthplace, education in philosophy in London at UCL, lifestyle transgressions, response by both national and international media, social media popularity, founding of a venture capital company, its numerous investments and his investment and opening of a half-billion dollar hotel. This biogrphical depth (even though depth is not necessarily required in sources) is certainly more than cursory. Many diverse sources, all of which are reliable, high-quality sources, establish notability here. The articles in publications such as Xinhua, Financial Post, Foreign Policy, Forbes, National Post, the BBC interview and many many others all take Wang Sicung as the main subject, rather than being about him being uniquely his father's son. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INHERIT. Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I have gone through and reviewed all the sources that have been added to the article. There's a lot so I will leave my comments under the hat below. In general I will note that nearly all of them refer to him or qualify him as the son of China's richest man. This is a clear indicator to me that he is not notable in his own right. As I said in my nomination, most of the coverage is trivial. If we only use the information in these sources, the majority of the article will be about a rich guy with lots of follows on the internet who likes to waste money on his dog and likes women with large chests. I am not seeing the significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG or to avoid a BLP full of trivia and WP:UNDUE material. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • [1] - Trivial tabloid like coverage
  • [2] -one sentence passing mention. Most of the article is about his father
  • [3] - Trivial passing mention about him using an app. Most of the article is about the app
  • [4] - Directory listing
  • [5] - "provided to FT.com readers by Capital Profile" Capital Profile seems to be a PR firm so I question the independence of this
  • [6] - Trivial tabloid coverage - Daily Mail
  • [7] - Rich list profile of his father, doesn't mention him at all
  • [8] - Most of the article is about the companies he invested in
  • [9] - Two paragraphs on how many follows he has on Weibo and how popular he is with the ladies
  • [10] - Brief mention in article about spoiled rich kids
  • [11] - Brief article about a documentary he is making and how rich he is
  • [12] - Tabloid type article about buying iphones for his unimpressed looking dog
  • [13] - another tabloid like article about buying iphones for his dog
  • [14] - Partly about the documentary, partly about how rich he is, how rich his father is and how he wastes money on his dog
  • [15] - Article about how he was criticized for wanting a girlfriend will big boobs. Also covers how rich he is and how many follows he has on Weibo
  • [16] - another article about his big boobs comment. Most of the article is about corruption from the west and his father
  • [17] - Another article about the big boobs comment
  • [18] - More trivial rubbish about buying iphones for his dog
  • [19] - Another brief article about the big boobs comment
  • [20] - Article about interview with the father in which he blames overseas education for the boob comment
  • [21] - Yet another article about how he is so rich he can buy 8 iphones for his dog
  • [22] - Article about how rich he is, how he likes to waste money and make vulgar jokes on the internet, and how his father blames the west
  • [23] - Very brief passing mention in relation to a possible investment
  • [24] - Brief mention in relation to his investment fund
  • [25] - Article about esports streaming service he is setting up
  • [26] - Brief mention in article about streaming service.
  • [27]- Another brief mention in article about streaming service
  • [28] - Very brief mention in article about hotel he owns
  • [29] - Mention in relation to hotel. Most of the article is photos
  • [30] - Another article mostly about the hotel

王思聪是中国大陆的富二代人物，在中国的大陆是非常有名的人物。wang is a famous figure in china in chinese news, the following links: if anyone cant read chinese news , please use google translation service !

Keep This guys seems to get a good amount of coverage, and his own business ventures give him more notability than whatever he had for just being a trust fund kid. WP:NONENGLISH sources undoubtedly exist as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Salt (repeatedly started and deleted twice) by all means as there has been large and noticeable amounts of PR advertising intentions and along with the noticeable activities to show it, none of this article has anything actually amounting to substance and the persistence of such claims that "there's sources or he must perhaps be notable" is not what convinces an article; several safety measures exist for this such as WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14, WP:IAR (advertising once again) and WP:NOT, all which show we can actually choose to delete an advertisement if it also is non-notable and is causing damage by existing and being kept. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • how about this？王思聪BBC专访，国民老公用品大揭秘 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage of People who have inherited money and are notable only for extensively covered by the press on that account are usually not of encyclopedic importance--The relevant principle is NOT TABLOID often expressed as "famous for being famous" In cases where there is specific notability for something real, this is not applicable, nor does it apply when coverage reaches an extraordinary level. I have almost never ~voted to accept articles like this, but reading it, I think that this is one of the exceptions. For one thing, there's his real business interests--where he got the money for them is not relevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would indeed be helpful to have someone from WikiProject China weigh in -- I'll request their presence. A Traintalk 12:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 12:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is, of course, at its heart, a human interest story. He is at least no less notable than Bo Guagua, but in the popular consciousness of ordinary Chinese people, a lot more notorious. That he is the son of a famous tycoon is besides the point - he creates his own notoriety, much as the Kardashians create their own; there are many children of rich people who do not behave in eccentric enough ways to warrant the media attention given to them. That his notability (independent of his father) is reported in numerous reliable, reputable sources should have made this a SNOW close, let alone a lengthy drawn out discussion. I can see Chinese editors crying "systemic bias" if we somehow deleted this article while an article on Tiffany Trump would never even be put on the chopping block. Colipon+(Talk) 12:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an interesting and well written article that gives readers a window into life in China. It currently has 31 references - surely that’s a lot? The subject is a founder, chairman and director of companies, should have never been wp:CSD-A7. This war on spam is killing Wikipedia, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • As I noted above, most of these references are trivial mentions and tabloid like material that do not indicate notability. Also, this is the state of the article when I tagged for speedy deletion. The previous deleted versions were of a similar nature and clearly met the criteria for speedy deletion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2016 (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/Wang_sicong&oldid=1143719666"