Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Chang

Tony Chang

Tony Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( · )

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the name change, this is the same individual as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhang Shang and User:Shujenchang. Pinging the editors who participated in the previous discussion User:Jsjsjs1111, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Omega625, User:AKS.9955, User:SwisterTwister, User:STSC, User:Lemongirl942, User:Grahamec, User:Sandstein Timmyshin (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This is an article about me. However, myself did not participate in the writing of this article. Due to COI, I will not vote in this discussion, but will make some comments for others' reference. Please note that the corresponding Chinese article 張樹人 was re-written in November 2016 with numerous new sources by another user 葉又嘉 who definately confirmed have no connections with me. Therefore, the article was restored on Chinese Wikipedia according to DRV. Although later on it went through to AFD vote again, but this time no one vote delete.--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• In addition, on 26 November 2017, the Chinese articles was added a notability template. However, one month later, when that user received a message to notify there was a month passed since the article listed for notability, but he did not submit the article for AFD. On 27 December, the article was listed on AFD page but not vote for delete by anothor user said that there is a month passed after the article listed for notability, but not nominated for deletion, and if others considered the article not met the notability criteria, can submit AFD within 7 days, and if no one submit AFD after 7 days, the notability template on the article should be removed. There was also no one submit AFD for the article within 7 days. Therefore, it can be seen that the Chinese Wikipedia community consent to there is no notability problem for the article on Chinese Wikipedia.--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• In the first AFD vote in April 2016 and later first DRV attempt on Chinese wikipedia, the Chinese article was deleted due to advert-like. After the re-writen in November and later DRV and AFD mentioned above, the Chinese community confirmed that the previous problems do not exsist after the re-writting, so that the article kept. I had a brief look at the English article and found that it was translated from the latest re-writtien version on Chinese Wikipedia, so that the advert-like issue should also not exsist on English Wikipedia as well.--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• It might be useful for this discussion to include the translated DRV and AFD discussions in November 2016 from Chinese Wikipedia:

• Status: Restored
• Reason for DRV: The previous version was deleted due to advert-like, but it not applied for the new version--葉又嘉 (talk) 15 November 2016 (Tuesday) 14:06 (UTC)

Comment: I considered that article met the policy of CSD G5 was based on previous discussions, and they might be refered for other administrators who considered to restore the article.--Wcam (talk) 15 November 2016 (Tuesday) 15:37 (UTC) Note added by translator: A few days after the article was re-writen by 葉又嘉 on Chinese wikipedia, it was submitted for CSD according to CSD#G5 (which is a policy similar to CSD#G4 on English Wikipedia) by Galaxyharrylion, and then deleted by administrator Wcam. 葉又嘉 then appealed on DRV.

Comment: According to G5, the article can only went through the CSD process if "The content is same or very to similar to the deleted version". However, when 葉又嘉 creating the article, he absolutely re-wrote the content as a third-party, and added new sources. According to "If the content is obviously different to the deleted version, but the nominator still consider it need to be deleted, it must go through AFD instead.", and "In some circumstances, the re-created article have opportunities to develop well. Then it must not be submitted for CSD, and should be submitted for DRV or AFD instead to have a re-discussion". Therefore, the article should not be CSDed, if someone considered it should be deleted, that should be AFD instead.--193.138.220.93 (talk) 16 November 2016 (Wednesday) 01:19 (UTC)

Support: I suggest administrators to compare the two versions of the article and deal with this matter fairly. --維基小霸王 (talk) 18 November 2016 (Friday) 03:31 (UTC)

Support: 張樹人 Tony Chang's Chinese name did covered by media for numerous times, and this time it is confirmed written by third-party.--Wetrace (talk) 19 November 2016 (Saturday) 04:17 (UTC)

• • Restored--User:ATUser talk:AT 22 November 2016 (Tuesday) 09:55 (UTC)

--translated from Wikipedia:存廢覆核請求/存檔/2016年10-12月#張樹人 on Chinese Wikipedia by Shujen Chang (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reason for AFD: From previous CSD G5 request, 張樹人 Tony Chang's name in Chinese is also known by "張上" Tony Chang's birth name "Zhang Shang" in Chinese. The article is his personal political advertisement, and was deleted twice previously. One time was in AFD, and the other time was in DRV. The references are not mainly describing the person in the article. --galaxyharrylion (talk) 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:03 (UTC) Note added by translator: Actually, the previous deletion for the article on Chinese Wikipedia should only be considered as once, as the DRV in May 2016 was an extension of the AFD discussion in April.

• Keep: No advert-like contents were found, and the references did cover the person in the article. --KRF (talk) 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:17 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: To be dealt with notability process. --Antigng (talk) 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:51 (UTC)
• Comment: The article was just restored in DRV. --User:Lnnocentius 23 November 2016 (Wednesday) 15:54 (UTC)
• Keep: No advert-like contents were found. However, if the article was finally deleted, I hope Tony can not be too struggle about that, as that is not good for health. --維基小霸王 (talk) 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 06:23 (UTC)
• Keep: No advert-like contents were found, and the references did cover the person in the article. --User:ltdccba⇒User_talk:Ltdccba⇒Special:用户贡献/ltdccba⇒ 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 10:31 (UTC)
• Keep: No advert-like contents were found, and the references did cover the person in the article. --小夏 (talk) 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 11:19 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: No advert-like contents were found. It is suggested to be dealt with notability process. --小弧 (talk) 24 November 2016 (Thursday) 15:49 (UTC)

Result: Weak Keep, To be dealt with notability process. --galaxyharrylion (talk) 26 November 2016 (Saturday) 05:14 (UTC)

--translated from Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2016/11/23#張樹人 on Chinese Wikipedia by Shujen Chang (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• As can be seen from the above translated DRV and AFD discussions in November 2016 from Chinese Wikipedia, the article was restored by administrator on Chinese Wikipedia AT in DRV. Even it was submitted for AFD later, no one voted for Delete in that discussion. There were just two users voted Weak Keep due to concern of notability. However, as mentioned above, after the notability template was added to the article on Chinese Wikipedia, as well as listed on notability nomination page for a month, no one submit the article for another AFD any more, and the notability template on the article on Chinese Wikipedia was also removed.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• It might also be useful to add find sources template for my name in Chinese:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Simplified Chinese)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Traditional Chinese)

--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Some comments about users who voted delete in previous deletion discussion might also be useful:

• Omega625: It seems a new user with just 19 edits who did not understand the nature of the article.
• SwisterTwister: Explained in responding to Deathlibrarian's comment at 02:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC).
• Arun Kumar SINGH (AKS.9955): Responded at 23:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC).
• STSC: Responded at 03:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC).
• John Pack Lambert: This is due to the misinterpreting by Jsjsjs1111 due to COI as I explained below. There are “lots of people meet Dalai Lama every year”, but are they all not notable and how many of them are reported? Also, I am notable not just because I “met the Dalai Lama”, the context in that article was that I organised some students from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan to meat with Dalai Lama, and my family members in China was threatened by Chinese Government trying to stop me organising the meeting with Dalai Lama, but I still successfully organised that meeting regardless about the threaten and pressures from Chinese Government. In addition, it seems that John Pack Lambert might not support to delete the article this time as not voting delete again, and even helped to improve the quality of the article.

--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Has numerous references, including The Daily Mail, The Canberra Times,The Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Times, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and a feature interview with Four Corners, as well as many others. Tony Chang featured in "Four Corners", which is probably Australia's most respected Current Affairs programme http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-04/tony-chang-talks-to-four-corners/8584798 ... As well as this ABC news article - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-04/the-chinese-communist-partys-power-and-influence-in-australia/8584270. I am concerned that this article is being continuously marked for deletion, possibly in bad faith by someone who may prefer the article deleted for dubious reasons(???) Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• User:Deathlibrarian Are you accusing me of bad faith? A previous version was deleted by a consensus vote of 6 other editors and I played no part in it. This article is created under a different name, and while the creator created a bunch of redirects (e.g. Anthony Shu-jen "Tony" Chang, Anthony Shu-jen Chang, Anthony Chang etc.) they intentionally avoided the previous name Zhang Shang and why? The previous version also had numerous references if you cared to read the previous discussion, especially User:Jsjsjs1111's analysis of the sources. Timmyshin (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Timmyshin No offence meant... I said *possibly* bad faith, just going off the comments here about the multiple tags for afd, though that post was by Shujen Chang...is that a sock puppet?? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I believed that Timmyshin might be misled by Jsjsjs1111 as I explained below.--Shujen Chang (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• As Deathlibrarian said, actually the Wikipedian Jsjsjs1111 who nominated for the previous AFD had some conflicts with me on Chinese Wikipedia before because of an argument I had with his friend BlackLotux (also known as Edouardlicn, permenently blocked on Chinese Wikipedia due to vamdalism) on VFD discussion of article 发正念 on Chinese Wikipedia, and had prejudice with me due to an incident on Chinese Wikipedia. So that makes Jsjsjs1111 treat article related to me as "spam" and try to delete that. He also misinterpreted many Chinese sources to non-English speaking users in the previous VFD on English Wikipedia leading others to vote delete, which will be explained in details by me later (I did not notice that deletion due to heavy study loads and exams, so that did not involved and explained in that discussion). However, I have already explained on the incident and got unblocked on Chinese Wikipedia mailing lists, and more importantly, to keep or delete an article is based on Wikipedia article criteria, not what the person in the article did on Wikipedia.--Shujen Chang (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• *Comment: I'm not aware of the backstory, but with the articles referred to in this page, as well as the Four Corners programme, and the ABC article, this would seem to be enough references for a keep. I would be *very* concerned if this article was deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• OK I spent some time reading your links on zh.wiki. So are these things true: 1) you once stole your ex-boyfriend's account (when he went to the bathroom) to vandalize Wikipedia and 2) you have used WP project to promote yourself (you have edited 165 Wikiprojects to link to your user page)? If not, and I apologize if so, I hope you can clarify which IDs you have used on wikipedia and what the relationship between you and the page's creator User:RichardYee is. Timmyshin (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• 1) That incident was my ex's user page on Chinese Wikipedia was vandalised by another user named Ltdccba and Ltdccba said his computer was stolen by me when he went to the bathroom to made the vandalisms on my ex's user page. I denied the accuse, but an administrator permanently blocked me on Chinese Wikipedia without listen to any explanations from me. In the early of 2013, CheckUser was introduced to Chinese Wikipedia, and I was strongly against it as the CheckUser on Chinese Wikipedia might be controlled by Chinese Government to check user’s IP address to persecute users. As I was persecuted by Chinese Government before, I was very sensitive about that. However, it got many administrators from Chinese Wikipedia angry about me as they considered that the benefits (helping them to find out sock puppets to prevent vandalism) were greater than the negative issues, and did not believe that would be a threaten from Chinese Government. They considered what I said was nonsense and making trouble to them, so that they were trying to find excuses to block me on Chinese Wikipedia (as just against setting up CheckUser was not a significant reason to block me according to Wikipedia policies). That was why they blocked me without any actual evidences and regardless any explanations from me. Then I appealed on the Chinese Wikipedia mailing list, finally another administrator unblocked me due to insufficient evidence for accusing me stealing Ltdccba’s computer for vandalisms. I did had some trouble with my my ex before that incident, that was due to I was seriously hurt by him, and I do not want to mention that too much now as it was a sad memory. That incident was already past almost 4 years and there were no such "incidents" after that. Also as I stressed above, what happened in Wikipedia Community to the person in an article cannot be used to determine to keep or to delete the article.2) I am not too understand what are you mean about "you have edited 165 Wikiprojects to link to your user page". I can just declare that I did not involve in any edits on articles of me in any Wikimedia projects. The ID I used on Wikimedia projects now is User:Shujenchang. I previously used an ID User:ZH979433 on Chinese Wikipedia, and that ID was stopped usage on Chinese Wikipedia due to security concerns about the CheckUser was elected on Chinese Wikipedia, as that time I was still in China and feared about potential persecutions from Chinese Government. I returned to Chinese Wikipedia using the username I used on other Wikimedia projects User:Shujenchang after I arrived Australia and became safe. Also, creating user pages on Wikimedia projects is not considered as promotion, and none of these user pages linked to the article about me, except Chinese Wikipedia which was linked by another user named LNDDYL. In addition, I did know an acquaintance whose name is Richard Yee. However, he did not tell me any things about that article, and I will try to check with him to see if he is User:RichardYee and created that article. Btw, I checked User:RichardYee's contributions, it seems mainly translation some article of Chinese dissidents from Chinese Wikipedia to English Wikipedia, such as Draft:Yi Gu translated from 古懿 and this article translated from 張樹人. I had a detailed reading on these too articles, and find that they were just pure translations from related Chinese Wikipedia article, except some later minor edits for adding the English source from SMH and ABC (which are not in Chinese Article).--Shujen Chang (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough, I trust that you are not using sockpuppets to promote yourself this time, so let's forget about what I said. So do you know your biographer 葉又嘉 then? Timmyshin (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I did not know 葉又嘉 before he created that Chinese article. I started to know him only after I got a message from him on Facebook said he saw some news about me and wanted to create an article for me. However, I was actually ignored his message as previously I was even not Facebook friend with him, so that his message went to "message request" inbox and was easy to be ignored. When I realised his message, I found that article was already established by him.--Shujen Chang (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a point of interest, in 11 years of editing on Wikipeida, this is one of the most heavily referenced articles I have seen put up for AFD. There is something amiss here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, there's even a link (now dead) purportedly showing his 7th-year math grades. I don't appreciate your constant insinuations; again the article was deleted through discussions once before on en.wiki and twice before on zh.wiki. For a dissident, does he have a large following or influence? I see no evidence of that. To quote User:STSC in the previous discussion, "just showing a banner and making some noises would not make him notable". The mainstream news stories just reiterate his self-told story, which is the same argument for his asylum case, and it's clear they are not about him, but about criticizing the Chinese government. ~1000 Chinese citizens file for political asylum in Australia each year (and tens of thousands in US, UK, Canada and France), and most of them accuse the Chinese government of past persecutions. What makes him different from the rest? Timmyshin (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I checked that link you mentioned, it was an expansion for what in NTDTV program, not for notability, and might met the policy of WP:USINGPRIMARY. If not, what to do is just to delete that link and related information, not to delete the whole article. I have also declared on Chinese Wikipedia that I had no way to involve in or affact what programs NTDTV make, and my relationship with NTDTV will be explained later. Also as I mentioned in the beginning, the article on Chinese Wikipedia was later restored and kept in discussion on Chinese Wikipedia, and also passed notability process on Chinese Wikipedia as well. In addition, I am not "just showing a banner and making some noises", STSC might misunderstood the previous English article due to its poor writing and mainly based on Chinese sources and I suspected he might not able to understand Chinese. I was covered by media for numerous times because of my experience of being a youth political dissident and persecuted at childhood. There are large amount of Chinese got political asylums every year, but how many of them are reported by media frequently? How many of them are persecuted in childhood? It is unusual for dissidents persecuted at childhood, as most of Chinese children and youth are brainwashed by Chinese Government and support its policies, so a youth dissident like me and even got experience of being persecuted is unique and attracts media attention. For the incident in Wikipedia, I was already explained above.--Shujen Chang (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Timmyshin You seem to be ignoring my point. All the flak, backstory and who people are connected to is not relevant to me. The article has substantive RS, as mentioned, including articles in The Daily Mail, The Canberra Times,The Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Times, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and a feature interview with Four Corners, as well as many others. It is comprehensively referenced. That alone should be enough for it to stay. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Four Corners (TV series) is a program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The programme ran for 47 minutes, of which less than 2 minutes were devoted to the subject. His story as published on the ABC/Four Corners site is identical to the Canberra Times piece and the Sydney Morning Herald piece (all published around June 5, 2017). I didn't see any Brisbane Times reference in the article. The Yahoo/AFP link only contains a trivial mention. The Daily Mail isn't WP:RS per Wikipedia community. So even if you count the June 5, 2017 story as one "significant coverage", WP:GNG requires "multiple", and the subject fails the criteria. Timmyshin (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that besides English sources, there are also numerous Chinese sources such as NTDTV, Liberty Times, Radio Free Asia and Voice of Tibet have "significant coverage" about the story of mine. There are no policies in English Wikipedia said that non-English sources cannot be used for RS in WP:GNG.--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• That's true, but every one of the sources is WP:PRIMARY, i.e. "Chang says..." "According to Chang..." Can you give me a single source that does not quote you directly? Timmyshin (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Many of them do not quote me directly, such as the article by Radio Free Asia (no pharases such as "Chang says..." or "According to Chang..." used for describing my story of being arrested and persecuted by Chinese Government, and these pharases are used only on my opinions for the case of Kwon Pyong), and the programe in NTDTV (what I said can be considered as primary, but what the host said should be considered as secondary).--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I am the author of this article. I am not sure what is happening here. I have some acquaintances with some Chinese dissidents who are in Australia and United States, such as Wu Lebao (吴乐宝), Tony Chang (張樹人) and Gu Yi (古懿). I believe all of them are notable dissidents in Chinese communities. However, I found that there is only English article for Wu Lebao, and the English article for Gu Yi seems is partly translated, and I haven't found English article for Tony Chang at all. Therefore I decide to translate the articles of Gu Yi and Tony Chang and from Chinese Wikipedia to English Wikipedia according to the writing styles of other articles on English Wikipedia, because I think both of them are living in English speaking countries and worthy to be concerned by English speakers as well. Additionally, I noticed that there are some English sources for Tony Chang, which are not included in the Chinese article, so after the translation, I added them to the English article. I cannot understand why this article should be removed at all. As I presented, I believe Tony Chang has enough notability, and I hope the article could be kept.--Richard Yee (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I believe so as well Richard Yee - the article appears to have substantive referencing, and the fact there is a version on Chinese Wikipedia only means there is more reason for their to be an equivalent English language one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That there is a version on Chinese Wikipedia is not a valid rationale for inclusion on English Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have just done a Factiva search, just to make sure I have all the references (In English, I can't read Chinese!)I have added three references, a reference to an ABC article, A Canerra Times Article, and a reference to the Four Corners Interview. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• They are the same reference (ABC and Four Corners are even the same website). This is WP:OVERKILL as mentioned in the previous AFD discussion. Timmyshin (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• WP:OVERKILL is just an essay for how to write Wikipedia. Please note "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines".--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• User:RichardYee Isn't this the two of you: [1]? Please read WP:COI: "contributing to Wikipedia about... friends is strongly discouraged". Timmyshin (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have read and compared the articles in Chinese and English, and found that the English version of the article was mainly a translation of the Chinese version written by the user 葉又嘉 who confirmed had no connections to me before he wrote the Chinese article. In addition, "acquaintance" is different to "friend", and just had some protests and events together did not mean we were friends. Also, "discouraged" is different to "disallowed".--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• As you mentioned to everybody yourself, the Chinese article was deleted for self-promotion and restored for 葉又嘉 to work on; therefore 葉又嘉 is not the main author of the Chinese version—you yourself are. Essentially you wrote the bulk of the Chinese version, 葉又嘉 removed some fluff, and your "acquaintance" (with whom you participated in many political activities and whose name is mentioned in the article as Yi Songnan) translated it to English. Isn't that true? Timmyshin (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• That is definately not true. First, when the Chinese article was deleted at the first time in April, it was just suspected as self-promotion but not confirmed. Many user voted delete on Chinese Wikipedia at that time just due to confilicts and prejudice with me as I explained. Then, the restored version is also not the version deleted at the first time. As I mentioned in the notes in translation, 葉又嘉 completely wrote an article different from the one deleted before. However, the new written article by 葉又嘉 was soon CSDed on G5 (which is similar to G4 in English Wikipedia). However, actually it cannot be CSDed according to the policies as that was completely different from the previous deleted version. I believe that CSD happened on Chinese Wikipedia only because of confilicts and prejudice to me as I mentioned to avoid voting process. When 葉又嘉 applied to DRV, the version restored was the version written by him which was just CSDed, not the previous version deleted in April.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Because it was only suspected but not confirmed, you are denying you wrote the original article? Are you telling me that when 葉又嘉 (who appears to be Taiwanese and who doesn't know you personally according to you) rewrote your biography from scratch in 2016, he could find on the website of your middle school your name among those students who scored 100 in 7th grade math in the 2006-07 semester? According to that webpages's archive [2] your name was listed as 张 上 with a space in the middle, please tell me which Chinese search engine can discover such a webpage by plugging in your name? In my view, only someone extremely familiar with your middle school website can locate that page, such as yourself. Timmyshin (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• In the initial version of the Chinese article written by 葉又嘉, it did not contain the link you mentioned.--Shujen Chang (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• So who is the IP that added links to your middle school math grades? You don't know? Timmyshin (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• That was also added by 葉又嘉 not IP. As I said, in the beginning I ignored the message form 葉又嘉, and later when I got his message, I also found that he said he wanted me to give him some more sources about me for him to extend the stub he just created. I then sent him the previous deleted article on Wayback Machine, and also told him that try to ignore about the contents and just look at the sources in the reference list, as someone are unsatisfied with previous contents due to conflicts and prejudice with me. --Shujen Chang (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• In addition, User:RichardYee isn't the original translator; he copied and pasted extensively from an original translation saved by User:KoningWA (not sure whether he was the original translator) around 2 years ago here, some sentences were copied verbatim such as "like many Chinese in pre-modern China, Zhang had many names". Because of his sloppy editing, the lede section now says you were born in Linyi, Shandong, when the early life section had Shenyang, Liaoning as your hometown. Timmyshin (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• I just had a look of KoningWA's edits. It seems KoningWA only worked on the article of another dissident Gu Yi. I also found the user's first edit was copied from the previous deleted version of this article just with a little bit content changed to Gu Yi's experince, and later more contents was changed to Gu Yi. I did not think it is an issue to write an article of a Chinese dissident by refering to an article of another dissident. Also I can see the current version of this article is completely different to the previous deleted version I found, like the difference in the corresponding versions on Chinese Wikipedia. Also "祖籍" (ancestral home) is different from "出生" (born in), and I saw from Chinese Wikipedia said that my "祖籍" was Linyi, Shandong and "出生" was Shenyang, Liaoning. "祖籍" can also be translated as "from", so that also not an issue for this article to say I was from Linyi, Shandong and born in Shenyang, Liaoning.--Shujen Chang (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• And you claim you are not friends with Richard Yee? Is this not him on your instagram? [3] [4] Timmyshin (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• There are many people I photoed on my Instagram. All of them are my "friends"? In your logic, and based on your behaviours in this discussion, can I also jurging you are "friends" with Jsjsjs1111 as well?--Shujen Chang (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• First of all Richard Yee=Yi Songnan repeatedly shows up in your Instagram. Secondly, your inflammatory question is absurd. I never had any interaction with User:Jsjsjs1111 outside of Wikipedia (and as a matter of fact, on Wikipedia). WP:COI: "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." and "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles". These guidelines are of course meant for User:RichardYee but somehow you are answering everything for him WP:Wikilawyering style. In the Chinese AFD discussions, it's repeatedly brought up that the IP who created your article points to a location in Queensland, Australia, but you apparently didn't deny or confirm the sock-puppetry. Instead you kept writing along the lines of "the allegations lack evidence". While I assume good faith, in 2013 you had admitted to stealing accounts and vandalizing Wikipedia but now you are denying the charges. And it's not just one user who accused you, it's two: Park1996 (your ex, from Tianjin, China) April 9, 2013 and Ltdccba (a Taiwanese guy) May 18, 2013, but now, on this en.wiki discussion, you are writing it was Ltdccba who vandalized Park1996's userspace and blamed you. Do you seriously think that nobody here knows how to read Chinese? You are blaming your opposition to Checkuser in 2013 on your fear of the Chinese government, very conveniently, even when you met Jimmy Wales in 2012 and knew Wikipedia has no ties at all to the Chinese government. Timmyshin (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• From what you said, you seems to be from a Chinese cultural background. Even if you are not related to Jsjsjs1111 personally, in my opinion, your behaviours in this discussion are very like a member of 50 Cent Party from Chinese Government. A note for other participants: According to an article in Hong Kong communities, most of Deletionist Wikipedians from Chinese Wikipedia are politically concerned, suspected to be members of 50 Cent Party, gaming the Wikipedia system by trying to selectively use Wikipedia policies and guidelines for political censorship purposes, hijacking Chinese Wikipedia using their double standards. Also, as Legacypac and Lankiveil already mentioned in this discussion, someone is suspected to try to delete this article due to political reasons, and to use political considerations over Wikipedia policies to mislead other participants.Then, "advised" not means someone must do something. Also, I am not answering for Richard but responding to you. Additionally, I even found nothing about answering questions for others in WP:Wikilawyering. More importantly, that is also an essay not policie or guideline. By the way, it seems you are more likely to be a lawyer or prosecutor and to try to find me "guity" and "charge" me, and then using so-called "character ground" as a valid reason for deletion (but actually it was even not a valid reason as I explained below), isn't it?--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that I was assuming good faith on you initially as I said at 02:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC). However, I am now having this opinion based on following reasons:

1. "shin" in your username is like a Chinese surname, so that I consider you seems to be from a Chinese cultural background;
2. You said "Do you seriously think that nobody here knows how to read Chinese" which my understanding is you can read and understand Chinese, so that I consider you seems to be from a Chinese speaking background as well;
3. You worked frequently on Chinese related articles based on your edits history on English Wikipedia;
4. You also had some edits on Chinese Wikipedia;
5. You were acting as a human flesh search engine to dig so-called "dark histories" of me in Wikipedia community and trying to use that as a reason for intervention of this deletion discussion, but actually as I said what happened in Wikipedia community itself is unable to be used to determine keep or delete for an article, as which should be determined based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines (no policies saying an article should be deleted if the subject in the article had so-called "disgusting and abominable behavior" in Wikipedia Community);
6. You were always misinterpreting Chinese contents and it seems you actually understand them as I said above, like what Jsjsjs1111 did previously;
7. You are insistent on deleting the article, and keep arguing with users who voted keep in this discussion, trying to let them change their minds, behaving like someone hate me for some reasons;
8. Comparing your abovementioned behaviours to this article as I mentioned.

--Shujen Chang (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• In addition, I have never denied using Park1996's account in the incident in April 2013. What I was responding in this discussion previously was about the incident in May 2013. Also, "stealing" is different to "using", which "stealing" is using something without authorisations from its owner. However, as I declared in an appeal in mailing list and village pump on Chinese Wikipedia, it was actually Park1996 gave the password of his Wikipedia account to me and authorised me to use his accounts for any purposes, in which Park1996 violated the rule of WP:NOSHARING, but my appeal was then closed and ignored by Chinese Communited due to long time passed by since that incident. Also "respect to the sentence" is different to "plead the guilty" as well. I said so at that time was due to some threatens from Park1996's father which I am unwilling to mention in details. More importantly as I was keep mentioning, what happened about me in Wikipedia communities itself (even I did found guilty for these accuses) is not revenant to determine to keep or delete this article, as this article deletion discussion can only be determined and considered according to Wikipedia article policies. Please not try to mislead others by using these so-called "incidents" and "accuses".--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• As you seems to be very concerned about the story of me and Ltdccba in the May 2013 incident, I am now telling you the story happened then although I was really not like to do so. Ltdccba was a Wikipedian in Taiwan who previously lived in Tianjin, and knew about me and Park1996, as well as the broken relationship between me and Park1996. When I was traveling to Taiwan in May 2013, Ltdccba took me to some interesting places in Taiwan. Before I left Taiwan, Ltdccba went to my hotel to have breakfast with me and prepare to send me to airport. During the breakfast, Ltdccba said that he can help to revenge my ex-boyfirend by vandalising his user page on Wikipedia, and also said if that was found by others he will said that was I stealing his computer to do so as I was already left Chinese Wikipedia and he thought that would not influence me. I just responded "as you like", neither opposing or agreeing what he was going to do. Then he did so, and later said that pretended that was me as he said to me previously.--Shujen Chang (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please also have a look at how other English users responed to that "incident": "This seems to be like trowing dirt.", "please be careful before you destroy people's names." --Shujen Chang (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• You also mentioned about the IP users participated in the AFD and DRV discussions in Chinese Wikipedia, I am now listing them below:

• AFD in April 2016

• 98.158.113.80 from United States

• DRV in May 2016

• 109.123.113.231 from United Kingdom

• DRV in November 2016

• 193.138.220.93 from Netherlands

• AFD in November 2016

• No IP users participated

As can be seen, none of these IP users were from Brisbane, even none of them from Australia.--Shujen Chang (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Also, I never said Wikipedia itself having any ties to the Chinese government, but some users participated in Chinese Wikipedia might be controlled by Chinese Government voluntarily or involuntarily, or even worked for Chinese Government as a member of 50 Cent Party as I mentioned above.--Shujen Chang (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Another very important point I considered to be addressed: You were keep mentioning my ex-boyfriend, and as I mentioned above that you are very likely to be from a Chinese cultural background even Chinese speaking background. According to Hanteng said in the village pump discussion on Chinese Wikipedia I mentioned above "Homophobia is popular in Chinese society", I might also be treated unfriendly due to the LGBT background. Please also be aware of this potential prejudice and discrimination, especially if other users from Chinese Wikipedia to be involved in this discussion later.--Shujen Chang (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• As Timmyshin said "Do you seriously think that nobody here knows how to read Chinese", that was also a problem that I conceded. It seems currently only I and Timmyshin are able to read Chinese, and most of the English users cannot understand Chinese to make decisions based on contents in Chinese. I also strongly believe that the article was previously deleted in English Wikipedia was also due to no understanding for Chinese and misleading by Jsjsjs1111 (at that time the article was lack of English sources for determination). Even later there are more Chinese users involved in this discussion, there also might be problems due to WP:COI for political reasons and the LGBT discrimination issue as I just mentioned above. My suggestion is that Google Translate might be useful for someone who are really interested to know the Chinese contents. Although the Google Translate is not too accurate sometimes, it was still useful for establishing some understandings.--Shujen Chang (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Didn't you refer to him as "My friend Richard Yee" on your website? So now he's suddenly not a friend because he created your article? Timmyshin (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• The word in Chinese "朋友" can refer to many different words in English including "friend" and "acquaintance". It is like the Chinese word "道歉" can refer to English words such "regret", "sorry" and "apologies". There are differences of these words in level of depth in English. Please note the differences between Chinese language and English language and not ignore the context.--Shujen Chang (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• As Tony said, I don't think translating for article about him is a problem either.--Richard Yee (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't your name mentioned in the article alongside Tony Chang and Gu Yi, whose article you just created, as the three authors of the open letter which was signed by ~40 people (seemingly less than the number of people who participated in the 4 AFD discussions on Chang)? So your article is next, I assume? Timmyshin (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Actually the next article will be edited by me is Wu Lebao, because after I read the English article for him, I found many contents in the Chinese article for him are not included, so I wanna translate them. However you forced me to enrol this unnecessary conflict launched by you, I don't have a good mood to translate anything currently. As Tony said you "are very like a member of 50 Cent Party" with reasons convincing me, so I just wanna ask are your next deletions are articles of Gu Yi and Wu Lebao? Unfortunately, the fact might be disappointed for you. They seemingly don't have the so-called "dark histories" in Wikipedia community for you to dig as Tony have, to become an "evidence" in your hand. So I believe deleting their articles might be more difficult.--Richard Yee (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not involved with Chinese wikipedia or connected in any way with writing or translating this page. I see a well referenced extensive article on a notable Chinses dissident. Given the nature of his activism we should be very sensitive to the fact some people will want to see such pages deleted for political purposes. Closing admin should weigh the votes of completely uninvolved editors like myself more heavily than those of potentially POV editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• By the same token, we should also be very sensitive that some people will vote keep only for political purposes. If there are any POV concerns, you should point them out directly, and not attack the strawman. Timmyshin (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Actually the user Jsjsjs1111 nominated for the previous deletion is a strong opposer of Falun Gong, according to what he said on his Chinese Wikipedia userpage as well as his edits on both English and Chinese Wikipedia. He was suspecting I was a member of Falun Gong when nominate deletion of the article on Chinese Wikipedia in April 2016, but actually I am not at all (I am a buddhist, which is completely different from Falun Gong). He also treat the NTDTV source in the article as unrealiable source just because of its Falun Gong background. However, there is no consensus in both Chinese and English Wikipedia on whether NTDTV is RS or not. As Chinese user Wetrace said in that discussion, it was not an issue to use NTDTV as a reference in the article.--Shujen Chang (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep, subject of a story on national TV in Australia, if that's not GNG I don't know what is. It does appear that some of the activity here, both for and against, is based more on political considerations with regard to the PRC than it is to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. For full disclosure, I have met Tony a couple of times and we're both students at QUT, although I would not say I know him well and I haven't participated in any of his political activity. Lankiveil 02:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC).

• User:Lankiveil Where did you get the idea that he was a subject of a national story when he appeared for less than 100 seconds in a 47-minute program about China? At least 10 other individuals are also shown in that segment, do they all deserve an article because the show was national TV? Timmyshin (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• TV programmes might cut a lot due to the time limit. However, there was a detailed report about me by ABC according to their interview, which also be republished on media such as SMH. As you said "at least 10 other individuals are also shown in that segment", then how many of them also mentioned detailedly in ABC reports?--Shujen Chang (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Don't at least Feng Chongyi and Lupin Lu fit the bill? Timmyshin (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• As I believe, Feng Chongyi also meets the notability policies on Wikipedia, just no one write for him yet. For Lupin Lu, in that report she was just mentioned about 5 pragraphs which was less than half of mine, and the part for her was just for the current event of monitoring students in Australia without any of her previous stories mentioned. Also, there are numerous other media coverage for my stories in Chinese, which is different to her as well.--Shujen Chang (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Your segment: 396 words (per the SMH link), 1'18 in video length. Her segment: 297 words, 1'34. Timmyshin (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• You are ignoring my point of Chinese sources I previously mentioned (and just explained deeply). Also, 396 is greater than 297, and I was mainly talking about the ABC report related to the TV programe rather than only the TV programe itself.--Shujen Chang (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Also, I found that another person Chau Chak Wing who was in that TV program as well also had Wikipedia article.--Shujen Chang (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Snow Keep The only support I've seen for Delete has come from people with a history of disputation either with this article's subject or with Chinese dissidents in general. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial I don't know who you are referring to, but I've had no history of disputation (or interaction for that matter) with the subject before this AFD, nor any disputation with Chinese dissidents in general. You claim you've "seen" something, what's your evidence? Timmyshin (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There wasn't anything personal, Timmyshin, and I was thinking mostly of the Wang Dan nomenclature issue, etc. You might want to drop the WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what he's supposed to be notable for. Is this a case of WP:BLP1E? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I was reported by different media frequently for numerous political activities, events, as well as my experinces of being persecuted by Chinese Government in childhood (as can be seen from the sources in the article) which I believe is not a case of WP:BLP1E.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• User:Power~enwiki Exactly. What is he notable for? 1) He's not notable as a persecution victim. According to his own story, he was arrested when he was 14 and released a few hours later. 2) He's not notable as a dissident activist. His open letter last year got "38 signatures" and "Signatures amount for the letter grew to more than 40 later on." [www.change.org/p/dictator-xi-jinping-free-kwon-pyong-and-other-kidnapped-citizens-and-stop-fascist-repression-for-your-future 78 Supporters on change.org] As a comparison, Fang Zheng and Yang Jianli's open letter for example got [www.change.org/p/xi-jinping-tell-us-what-happened-to-the-two-tank-men more than 6000 supporters on the same website]. And Mr. Chang here is supposed to be a notable cyber-activist (per article). Timmyshin (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• 1) It is not only a personal story, but it is realised as a political issue because of numerous media coverage for this, which is verifiable, no matter how long I was detained.--Shujen Chang (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• SO what are you notable for? Timmyshin (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• As a youth dissident and student activist. As I said above, most of Chinese youth are brainwashed by Chinese Government or do not have the brave to against the Chinese Government even with the knowlege of truth. It is very rare for person as me stand against Chinese Government from such young age and even being persecuted despite of how long I was detained, which attracted attentions from mainstream media.--Shujen Chang (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• 2) That can not be determined just based on numbers for signing, but the target and range of participants. First, we are targeted only Chinese oversea students, not everyone in the society. Then, the range of our participants covered students from high school to PhD students from different countries and education institutions.--Shujen Chang (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Snow keep - With all the references which have been listed over and over in ths AFD, it is quite obvious that this subject clearly passes WP:GNG. The subject is notable. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat worried that almost all the sources are in Chinese and the remaining ones appear to be trivial coverage of him in discussion of Chinese democracy. However, with the two editors above discussing in such detail, I feel it's going to be impossible to find a consensus until they both quiet down. This is clearly not a situation for a snow keep; (the same sources from Chinese wikipedia are used), though I would not recommend anyone attempt to speedy-delete the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Question I'm not admin and therefore can't see the deleted version under the other name, but what anyway is the relevant scope of 'sufficiently identical'? Is a textually different article based on identical sources 'sufficiently identical', for example? Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I believe this is actually a new translation rather than an entirely new article, but I'm not certain about that either. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I wouldn't see it as a good G4 because in the original AfD discussion, it seems that only the nominator read Chinese so the only information about the Chinese-languages sources was fed through that filter. Also, the discussion seemed to have been influenced by the deletion of the Chinese-language article on the subject, which has since been reversed and which has survived a subsequent AfD. Looking for English-language sources, a prefunctory search gives me enough leads that I am not really in doubt of the notability of the subject; the tone of the article is another matter. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The previous deletion was nominated on 27 May 2016 and deleted on 12 June 2016. Any Chinese sources after that time are new sources, such as 1, 4, 6, 7, 15, 17 and 24 in the current version. So many new sources are added actually.--Shujen Chang (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delete- Has anyone saying keep actually read the article? Nothing is notable about him. He is a political dissident from China. Not notable. And other than that... ? Nothing. There aren't even attempts at establishing notability. We simply CANNOT give every political refugee a WP article. El cid 18:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

And I just read more of the comments saying keep, none of them raise valid WP policy. "Well this person has a page so I should have one too" is not a valid reason. Appearing on a TV special does not make anyone notable, unless the entire special is about you. If WP China has an article about you, congratulations, but their decisions are wholly non-binding here. This should be an easy deletion. It IS an easy deletion. Hell, this should be a speedy deletion. El cid 18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful when you remove something for "unsourced" if they are in Chinese sources, if you do not understand Chinese.--Shujen Chang (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

On AN/I you were advised [5] by four long-term editors (including myself) -- two of them admins -- to discontinue your participation here, since you claim doing so was creating psychological problems. I suggest you follow that sdvice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - This is the English-language encyclopedia, and, as far as I can see, there is only one English-language reference by which English speakers can determine the notability of the subject. (Three of the English-language sources are the same article, and one is The Daily Mail, which has been determined not to be a reliable source. The one article is not a sufficient hook upon which to hang the subject's notabilty.) For me, that counts as insufficient evidence of notability, as I'm not willing to posit that the references in Chinese amount to a legitimate claim of notability. When there are additional English-language sources which support the claim of notability, then the article can be re-created (with the Chinese sources). Given the subject's residency in Australia, it seems to me that there ought to be more English sources which discuss him, if he is indeed notable, but those are conspicuous by their absence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You might want to look at the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian broadcast coverage, though, which AFAIK has nothing to do with the Daily Mail piece. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually read the sources cited, or are you simply stating generalities? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And to state it again, this RfC detyermined that the Daily Mail is no longer considered to be a reliable source, so it does not count. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it not true, though, that if the ABS and the SMH run the same article, then both contribute to establishing the notability of the subject? Also, there simply is no rule stating that only English-language sources "count" for notability. If you look at the Voice of Tibet piece, for example, it looks to me (as a non-Chinese speaker) like a reliable source discussing the subject at some length. Can anyone tell me otherwise? I have difficulty seeing how someone would attract coverage from Aljezeera, the SMH, Voice of Tibet and from Thailand, without being WP:Notable (or having a garage band :p). If so, it should be some kind of achievement. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Wikipedia policy wise, if an article is notable for one language Wikipedia, then it would pass the notablility for all Wikipedia. In any case, as has been pointed out by Newimpartial there are multiple english language source, and they aren't all copied from the same source as far as I can see. If it would help, should we get someone from the WP:CELE team to look at the chinese articles and translate them??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ther is no such thing as a Wikipedia-wide standard of notability - the Foundation does not get involved in content in that way. Each separate Wikipedia sets it's own standards for notability, so what happened on zh.Wiki has no bearing on what should happen here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Different language Wikipedia's have different criteria for notability. For example the Polish Wikipedia considers all professors to be notable, while the English-language Wikipedia has never gone this far. Each language Wikipedia has adopted its own guidelines on notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete The subject is a student who was granted political assylum. His level of involvement of protests is just not high enough to justify a stand alone article. There is no need for sources to be in English, English language is about the language used in the articles not about what sources we use of what subjects we cover, but nothing here shows the level of reliable source coverage that would justify having a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert I'm in Australia, and I can verify that both the Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC and the Four Corners programme are all WP:RS, and in fact, probably the three most respected media outlets in Australia, in particular Four Corners. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

They are the same article word for word. Did no one actually read the sources? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

However these sources are not enough focused on Chang to justify a stand alone article. He is more used to illustrate a larger point than a subject in his own right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC) -

I must disagree with you there - see "Tony Chang talks to Four Corners" - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-04/tony-chang-talks-to-four-corners/8585542 John Pack Lambert - and in terms of WP:RS, and for those unfamiliar with Australian Media, the ABC is our BBC equivalent. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Please take a moment to stop answering in generalities and actually read the cited references. (2) No matter how reliable the source, if the content is sufficiently focused on the subject, it's not enough to estbalish notability. The mention of my name in a recent {New York Times article does not make me notable, despite the reliability of the Times as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken How does the mentioning of your name in an article equate to where Tony Chang's name is mentioned in the title of one of the references? "Tony Chang talks to Four Corners". Am I missing something here? As for having read them, I did.... in fact I added some of them myself after sourcing them on Factiva. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't read the sources, have you? I suggest to the closer that the !vote of Deathlibrarian be ignored, as they are clearly just here to !vote "keep" for whatever reason, unrelated to Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert Hi, mate. I am confusing that I saw you have helped improve the article such as correcting grammar. But if you want the article to be deleted, why did you help improve the article? Is there anything changed your mind? Is it because of Tony's experience with his ex-boyfriend? I had a look at your user page. Actually I am also a member of LDS, but I don't mind others have homosexuality in social issues at all, and I also don't mind to participate in political activists with people with different types of sexualities. Besides that, Tony is the famous student activities in Chinese dissidents group. His role is very important for Chinese democratisation. He has the report of the most famous news program ABC 4 Corners, as well as many media reports in Chinese. No matter what style is this argue, He deserves to have his own article.--Richard Yee (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I cannot answer for JBL, but I'll tell you my thinking when I do the same thing: I do not believe the article should be kept, but if by chance it is, I'd like it to meet Wikipedia's standards. Editing the article to improve it does not necessarily imply that one thinks the article should be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• My last comment/statement: Actually, I just want to be fairly treated. If the article did not meet the notability criteria according to policies and guidelines in English Wikipedia here (such as if really only English sources should be counted for GNG purpose), I will be respect to the final result even if it is delete. I admit I did had some so-called “dark histories” in Chinese Wikipedia community, and also never denied about the vandalism in the April 2013 incident with my ex as I said above, and really felt sorry about that, but I was really seriously hurt at that time and it is easier for me lose control especially I had experienced of traumata as in the article and I said in ANI. However, I still aware that is not an excuse for me in that incident, even I was not intentional to make any troubles in the Chinese Wikipedia Communities. The Chinese article (later restored after re-establishment) once deleted due to prejudice from other voters. As I stated above, what I hope is this discussion not to be affected by subjective prejudice, discriminations, or any other considerations about myself as a person like what happened in Chinese Wikipedia. As I explained, the deletion process should only be based on objective policies, not the consideration about the subject in the article. As Beyond My Ken and others in ANI suggested, I will leave this discussion now (even later Timmyshin is still here), and look back for the result one or two month later. Bye everyone.--Shujen Chang (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Merge (was Keep) I would prefer a merge but see no plausible target. List of Chinese dissidents isn't suitable as a target. Based on User:Deathlibrarian's comments on sources, I support keeping this article if a merge target doesn't exist. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Do me a favor, read the English-language sources for yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've looked at the SMH one. It's mostly coverage of him in the context of Opposition to the Chinese Communist Party in Australia; I'd support a merge/redirect if such a page existed. Some of the trivial coverage of him only found in Chinese-language sources needs to be removed, but I don't feel the article is purely promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, you must look at all three (excludingthe one from the Daily Mail) since they're exactly the same article. Please don't !vote here if you haven't actually looked at the article and checked the sources. There is, essentially only 1 source for this article taht's accessible to 99% of the editors of en.Wiki, and it is not sufficient to establish notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I see what you're saying now. This SMH link: [6] and this ABC link: [7] are the exact same content. I refuse to read the Daily Mail. Some of the Chinese links (specifically The Epoch Times) are definitely not acceptable for notability. Is there any other English-language source presented, or a credible claim of importance (not simply coverage) in any of the Chinese ones? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked the versions, but I gather from what Tony Chang (who I think is Shujen Chang himself said, it was a promotional type article in the past, but that material has been removed, it has been re written (may be as a result of a previous attempt at deleting the article). Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

In point of fact, you haven't really checked anything, have you? For whatever reason (I won't speculate) you just want the article kept. Fortunately for the closer, you haven't actually cited any evidence-based policy for it to be kept, so your opinion really shouldn't carry much weight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you Beyond My Ken- if you want to get personal, that's really your Kharma. I've stated my opinion on it. I'd recommend you go and read this Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks before continuing your work on wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest administrators that have no connection with the subject nor China to evaluate this article and deal with this matter fairly. --The Master (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Last comment Per administration advice, I will stop arguing with/about the subject but I'd like to clarify some POV concerns about my character. User:Newimpartial has raised the issue of User_talk:Timmyshin#Wang Dan as possible indicant of some ulterior motive on my part. In short, I moved Wang Dan to Wang Dan (dissident) after I created Wang Dan (Song dynasty), just like I moved Ding Wei to Ding Wei (Go player) after creating Ding Wei (Song dynasty), Zhang Qi to Zhang Qi (shot putter) after creating Zhang Qi (Song dynasty), and Wang Gui to Wang Gui (Tang chancellor) after creating Wang Gui (Song dynasty). If I were intolerant of Chinese dissidents I wouldn't have made this edit, if I were a LGBT-hater like shujenchang charges I wouldn't have made major contributions about a gay film (banned in China btw). I am however intolerant of editors who consistently misuse Wikipedia, especially those who stubbornly push for their WP:COI articles despite previous deletions, and there's no doubt that this is the case here (just look at this discussion). Hope this clarifies some bad-faith concerns. Timmyshin (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete BLP written by new user, recreation of content previously deleted by community consensus. This page should have been speedied. If I'm missing something, let me know -- I didn't read the massive wall of text above, nor do I intend to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Key points:

• not the same article previously deleted, so should not have been speedied;
• previous AfD discussion influenced by deletion on Chinese wikipedia, but the article has since been restored there and survived AfD there;
• new version of the article includes English-language and international RS for N not available in the deleted article;
• not a great article, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)