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 delete. --bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun[edit]

Closer's notes
The only reason for this nomination is that it is supposedly necessary for procedural reasons, since there has supposedly been less than the necessary 5 days discussion. In fact there were 7 days, 22 hours and 56 minutes of discussion on the first AfD, and another 5 days, 11 hours and 21 minutes at the DRV debate. That's a total of 13 days, 10 hours and 17 minutes of discussion (or 2.685694 times the "regular" amount).

The first AfD was closed at one point by Daniel; but only for 25 minutes and 6 1/2 days after the debate began anyway - well after the standard 5 day period. It was again closed by Drini, this time 7 1/2 days after beginning, which lasted 23 minutes.

In all of these piles of discussion the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion, mustering both weight of policy and weight of numbers.

--bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supplementary notes

It now seems necessary to expound this a little more for people who haven't understood what has happened so far. Among all of the discussion of the content of the article which occurred in the first AfD and at DRV, there were essentially only two arguments raised:

  • the article should be kept, because it has multiple sources, and thus meets the threshold criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (people);
  • the article should be deleted, because the sources at best are about the meme, and by focusing on the person instead the article is contrary to the tenets of the biographies of living persons policy.

Not only does the latter argument rebut the former, but the weight of numbers across the whole course of the discussion was behind the latter argument.

I feel that confusion has abounded because of the failure of some people to appreciate the distinction between the person and the meme. There is agreement from most of the people in favour of deletion that the meme may be notable. However the issue in question is the article about the person, and that should not be lost sight of.

--bainer (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Qian Zhijun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The previous AfD on this "internet meme"-star degenerated after several out-of-process closures. DRV overturned that mess. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for full consideration. Xoloz 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD will run for five days. Early closures will be reverted,???? Says who, and on what authority? We don't do self-appointed dictators here.--Docg 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I will revert them. My authority is the "best interests of Wikipedia." We need a definitive result here.
Stop wrongly suggesting fair discussion is a disgrace to anyone. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying anything about the discussion. I'm commenting on the mindless proceduralism that has prevented this disgraceful mess being deleted. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know if you've noticed, Jeff, but among the above deletes are some of our most active handlers of email complaints. Worth a pause for thought I'd say. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 18 May 2007 (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.
More