Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yat Siu

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. 28bytes (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yat Siu

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

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

Some people like this article, some don't, and there's been some back-and-forth about that in other venues. Here's the place to discuss whether the article should be kept, deleted, converted to a redirect to Animoca Brands, merged into that article, or what. Herostratus (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neuetral as nominator. I don't know what's going on here, just that some editors feel strongly about the article and have been arguing about it at other places, whereas the better place is here. Deletions should not be done via blankings-to-redirect and insisting. Herostratus (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not restored the article myself as I did not want to edit war The page history, [1] and [2], suggests otherwise. --John B123 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing the massive slab of text with quotes thing again. For a while, you were at least collapsing the quotes. 2-3 screens of text just comes across as an attempt at filibustering - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not filibustering to make cogent, detailed arguments supported by examples, excerpts, and considered analysis. If you're not up to reading and considering editors' arguments and argue your points on the merits, fine, but then how is contributing here helpful to what we're trying to do? And it's not a "thing again" for this venue. We're starting fresh here with some new eyes. Can we please stick mostly to the merits of the case. Herostratus (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought
WP:THREE was applicable here? --John B123 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I provided
WP:THREE in the "Selection of three sources" list to establish that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I included 10 additional sources to address Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages by definitively establishing that the subject is notable independent of Animoca Brands so should have a standalone article.

I don't like to collapse the sources with quotes as that makes the quotes less visible. The quotes explain why I think the subject is notable. Although I generally don't collapse sources with quotes anymore as I agree with Herostratus (talk · contribs) that this is not filibustering, I have done this now so that editors can comment on the quality of the sources instead of the length of the post. Cunard (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Question, is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in play here? I haven't seen that claim, but ask because people seem to be feeling really quite strongly that the article is not legit. If it's a possibility, should not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard thread be opened? This could have a strong influence on how we dispose of the article. Herostratus (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there have been no claims of COI, and as far as I can see you're not making one, this seems like mudslinging to me. I don't follow the logic. Two editors are trying desperately hard to save the article, three have reverted the changes, but the three who have made the reverts have had their integrity questioned. All that a side, as the article has already been discussed in multiple places, starting another discussion would come across as
      WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --John B123 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yes, fair point, but I'm just trying to figure out what the deal is here, and it looks kind of sus. Looking at the page history I get:
        • Page created November 2018, basically sailing along until December of last year, when
        • 2021, December 1, User:IceWelder blanked the page (not a huge fan of people doing this, but legal) and left a redirect.
        • December 3, restored by an anon. Special-purpose anon.
        • December 3, IceWelder doubled down and blanked the page again. Proper procedure per
          WP:BRD
          is to not do that but rather go to the talk page and seek consensus, so this is edit warring.
        • December 3, restored again by same anon (User:218.250.109.65). It's arguable that this is edit warring and proper procedure would be to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But they didn't.
        • December 3, IceWelder tripled down and blanked again. Now we have a real edit war.
        • December 4, same anon restored again.
        • December 12, User:David Gerard (an admin) steps in and blanks the page again (edit summary was "Rv promotional IP", which is why I asked about conflict of interest).
        • December 20, a different anon restored the page again. Her eighth edit and last so far. Started in 2020, so could be sleeper?
        • December 20, David Gerard blanked the page again
        • December 23, another new anon (the third now) restored the page. Also her eighth edit and last so far. Started in 2017... sleeper?
        • December 23, David Gerard blanked the page
        • Christmas Day, another new anon (the fourth) restored the page again. Her first and only edit.
        • December 28, User:John B123 steps and blanks the page
        • December 30, User:Cunard steps and restores the page
        • 2022 January 2, David Gerard blanks the page
        • January 2, restored by Cunard
        • January 2, blanked by David Gerard
        • January 2, User:Herostratus (that is me) restored the page, sent it to AfD, and asked that the page remain as is so that AfD can properly discuss it, which request has been honored.
      • That's where we are. This is like a really long edit war, and the whole thing is odd and possibly everyone involved (except me!) should take a cooldown block or something. But I mean
        WP:BRD
        , basically. The admins at the Edit Warring board would not have been kindly I don't think.
The fact that various single-purpose IPs were stepping in... is that suspicious? Sounds sound extremely suspicious to me. Maybe David Gerard figured it was a phalanx of COI trolls, and that's why he did what he did. Edit warring doesn't seem the best to handle that tho. Perhaps this AfD, where it's legit and important if Chinese trolls are supporting this article. Nobody's really said that, that I've seen, tho. Or maybe to the COI board, then here when that's concluded?
Oh and Cunard took this to two different board --
WP:DRV where there was a long and well-attended discussion (lot of people saying go to AfD, some not), and another board, I forget which. Quite a dog's breakfast. Whole thing is odd. Now on to the merits, I guess, unless the plethora of anons or whatever want someone to claim trollery, which would matter, but nobody has really said that yet. Herostratus (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for doing this detailed timeline and analysis, Herostratus (talk · contribs). I restored Yat Siu as an article after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animoca Brands was closed as "keep" and after I noticed this edit to Animoca Brands that removed a link to founder Yat Siu as a "circular redirect". Cunard (talk) 11:45, 7 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yat_Siu&oldid=1065382106"