Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (4th nomination)

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tye

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

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

This article has already been deleted twice, in part because the article was largely self-promotional. Although new sources have been added to the article the mentions of the subject are either incidental to the main topic, or the sources are not significant. Furthermore, the article goes into excessive detail about this Vloggers output and verges on being promotional. Shritwod (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
. Three sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are:
1. Mo, Yu 莫雨 (2021-07-30). ""在中國，自由都是表面的"：一位逃離牆國的美國網紅" ["In China, freedom is superficial": An American Internet celebrity who fled the wall country] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Voice of America, "Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality." From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".
2. Sjöberg, Alexander (2019-07-28). "'De ville ødelægge os psykisk': Den vilde historie om to vestlige YouTube-stjerner, der forelskede sig i Kina, så deres venner blive anholdt og til sidst måtte stikke af" ['They wanted to destroy us mentally': The wild story of two western YouTube stars who fell in love with China, saw their friends get arrested and had to flee in the end]. Politiken (in Danish). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
3. Liu, Youwei 劉又瑋 (2021-08-26). "賺的錢比中國多7倍！台灣擁2戰略關鍵老外讚：一直想搬回去" [Earn 7 times more money than China! Taiwan has 2 strategic keys. Foreigner praises: I always want to move back] (in Chinese). FTV News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
The subject has received significant international coverage in three countries: Denmark (Politiken), Taiwan (FTV News), and the United States (Voice of America). Numerous other sources provide less substantial coverage about the subject. The subject meets 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.
The article was deleted in two AfDs: 17 May 2017 and 2 July 2018 (an 8 August 2009 AfD was about a different person). I supported deletion in both AfDs. A deletion review was closed as "decision endorsed" on 30 October 2021. I submitted a draft for review as the subject had become notable since the 2018 AfD. A 2022 deletion review was closed as "allow recreation" on 28 June 2022.
The article complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and provides due weight about the subject's background and activities. I do not consider the article to be promotional.
Cunard (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging
Demetrios1993 (talk · contribs), PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs), and S Marshall (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20#Matthew Tye participants and closer: Sandstein (talk · contribs), Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs), Star Mississippi (talk · contribs), and King of Hearts (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging two editors from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 15#Matthew Tye whom I missed as their comments were in a collapsed box: WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) and Amakuru (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I believe there are many operators for the CCP that keep flagging this and Serpentza articles for deletion. I wish that all those would be blocked 80.169.0.210 (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. There's no one who researches their votes more, and I'm especially convinced by the fact that he saw factors having changed and spent the time to read and research before creating the draft. I believe the sources he's included here add up to notability for Tye. Further, I think the fact that it was deleted twice is a red herring. This was not an out of process creation, the recent DRV explictly permitted it, although it didn't preclude an AfD. Not to say it's in bad faith, I just think raising it is going to lead !voters to the wrong conclusion. Star Mississippi 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more here than there was before. Just public relations fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed, it feels very much like a puff piece rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Certainly the first two versions of the page were purely self-promotional, and although this is better it goes into way too detail and smacks of being a hagiography. Shritwod (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I accepted the most recent draft because I was convinced by
WP:BASIC is not met by those specific sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Weak~~ Keep - I agree with Cunard and King of Hearts that the test of
neutral. It was written both to praise its subject and to describe him. It should be tagged for reworking as to neutrality and tone. I also agree with Star Mississippi. The AFD nomination is being made in good faith, but is being made in good faith error. If all of the fluff is removed from the article, there will still be a C-Class article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I wrote all of the text in the current version of the article. I did not write the article to "praise its subject". I wrote the article to "describe him" based on all the reliable sources that covered him. Editors who have raised Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns have not pointed out which paragraphs, sentences, or phrases are non-neutral. I recommend that editors who consider the article to be non-neutral open a discussion on the article's talk page with specific examples of what is non-neutral and what can be improved. I am open to discussing on the article's talk page whether any content needs to be reworded or whether any content does not comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD nominator added a {{POV}} template to the article. I have responded at Talk:Matthew Tye#Neutrality. Cunard (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per
Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep I don't think Voice of America should count for notability due to the US government bias, but the other two sources presented by Cunard are enough to meet
WP:NBASIC. Jumpytoo Talk 05:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (summoned by ping, !voted in older afds) agree with above points that it should be kept.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:20, 7 July 2022 (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.