Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew D. Hsu

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 of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew D. Hsu

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Vanity page StoatBringer 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This page meets the criteria for notability (famous author with over 5000 books in print and readers). - Solaroid

I don't see any reason for it being a vanity page. It meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and is unbiased. - Solaroid 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think he's a signfigant person, but the article is in need of some cleanup. Darquis 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me what part of the article needs to be cleaned up? I'd like to get the deletion consideration notice removed. Solaroid 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think merely being a young prodigy is sufficient grounds for notability. I think this is more "potentially notable", and Wikipedia will be here if or when that happens. As far as being an author his book was only written in Chinese (thus inaccessible to most readers of this encyclopedia) and allegedly sold 50,000 copies which is a lot but not enough in my opinion to make him notable as most best-sellers tend to get up into the millions. — GT 01:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is to be a published author with over 5000 readers or copies in print. 50000 copies in taiwan is a lot - remember that the taiwan market is much smaller than that forr the US. Its not the language of the book, but the influence that counts. with so many people inspired and influenced by this person, it would be unwise not to include him - it would be a disservice to the community if the entry is not included. Many millions of chinese people also read wikipedia! Andrew Hsu is a great inspiration for thousands of children, and is probably the most significant Hsu on wikipedia. If he's not included, why should those others be? his wco organization has already helped thousands of children in poor countries. He is definitely notable and not just "potentially notable." Royal993 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is the user's first edit and he may be a sockpuppet of Solaroid. In any event I see no citation for the sales figures so dig them up or base your argument on something else. — GT 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I came from korea one year ago, and when I was in korea, I saw a news report on Andrew hsu on national MBC tv. I know that he has helped a lot of young people Jasonkim
  • This too is the user's first edit. Newly-created accounts (especially those created after this article was nominated for deletion) are generally ignored in this process so if this is the same user making all of them, please don't bother. — GT 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. From the four scannings presented in the article (China Times, Liberty Times, Ming Sheng Daily and United Daily News), three are notable newspapers with article in Wikipedia. However, since I can't read them, I cannot see if they help fulfill the latest biography notability point in WP:BIO for people still alive. -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with GT, this is someone who at some point may potentially be notable, but at this point he isn't. The vanity and sockpuppetry doesn't help. IrishGuy 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, I did not do any sockpuppetting. You have your right to your own opinion or guess, but you shouldn't accuse me randomly. Irishguy, you have said the person is not notable right now, and what grounds do you have for that? GT has said "merely being a young prodigy is not grounds for notability", and I agree. But I am not proposing notability on these grounds. He is a published author with much more than Wikipedia's criterion, which is easily verified through the publisher. He clearly meets Wikipedia's guidelines of "large fan base, name recognition, published a book with an audience of over 5000, autobiography". The guidelines does not say what language the book should be published in. You are entitled to your opinion, but the guidelines are very clear and straightforward.Solaroid 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Can you please get some documentation for your sales figures? We can't take your word for it. — GT 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Please point out where I accused you of sockpuppetry. I simply noted that there have been a couple of newly created accounts showing up here to vote. That usually denotes sockpuppetry...although I never said that you specifically were responsible for it. As for the rest, I am familiar with the guidelines. What I am less clear on is any verifiable references for what you claim. IrishGuy 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• To me, “Newly-created accounts” means kids or children or early teens. What you said means, kids’ opinions are generally ignored in the process. That is very true in this world. Your comment are so familiar, but that doesn’t make it right. That is what the world children’s organization is doing, to assert the rights of poor children in the world. Andrew Hsu inspired us. This is your place, you can decide to keep or delete, but don’t say my opinion should be ignored. Bye. Jasonkim

• What newly created accounts is refering to is just that...an account with no prior editing history. It could be a sockpuppet. It has absolutely nothing to do with age. IrishGuy 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• no. you missed my point. What I am saying is, just because you’ve been here longer doesn’t make you more right than me. My opinion should carry the same weight as your opinion. Jasonkim

• He responded to exactly what you said. You should have been clearer with your allegory. Anyway please read this page to see why we discount the opinions of users with new accounts. — GT 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Keep?. I personally don't see any reason why this is a vanity page. For notability, the article is informative and well-researched, with media reports like CBS, KOMO4, Time for Kids, etc. If you google the english name of Fervent Global Love of Lives, you get 296,000 hits, but if you search for the Chinese name (copy and pasted off a site in Google), I got 7 million results, so this is a notable award. He also seems to fulfill WP:BIO, with multiple features in national newspapers, as his article claims. But is it reasonable to ask for proof of sales figures? Exactly how would the user who created this page go about doing so? Also, I don't see people asking other authors for this. Kr0nnik 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Kr0nnik's account was created today. His edits so far consist of editing the pages of people named Hsu, nominating pages for AfD, voting on some existing AfD's, and a singular edit to his user page, probably so the link to his username wouldn't be red when he finally came here. Despite this user's intentions I've never seen such a clear (yet creative) sockpuppet.
  Anyway, to address your points, like I said we simply cannot just take your word for it that he has sold that many books and that his WCO organization has been as successful as claimed (and everything else for that matter). Wikipedia policy prohibits original research and requires verifiability with reliable sources. And while Andrew's story and accomplishments might make a very good topic for feature pieces in news sources, I still am not seeing any evidence from you that he is notable enough to be written about here. — GT 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Are you the same person who also accused me of socket puppet? to you,if people are new and have different opinions from yours, then they are a sockepuppet. You ask for evidence when you accuse other people without evidence? you ask for "veriafiability from reliable soruces." where is your verifiability from reliable sources when you accuse other people? for one thing, I know you're wrong about me being a sockpuppet. the newspapers that are in andrew's article Are reliable sources. Tell me that other authors in wikipedia also supply verifiability from reliable sources of sales figures. you can't! Jasonkim

• Everyone is held to the same standards here. No exception is being made for this article. Do the newspaper articles discuss his book sales or otherwise demonstrate his notability? I don't read Chinese so I don't know. Just being mentioned in a newspaper doesn't really count, especially when they are feature pieces and not real news. — GT 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Frankly, I think you protest too much. What are the chances that you created a Wiki account and knew immeditiately to come here and vote on this? This AfD is the only thing you have made any edits on at all. That doesn't strike you as more than a little curious?IrishGuy 07:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not really notable for anything except that he may be in the future. A child prodigy is not enough to warrant notability, and the article is overstuffed with unimportant things that he has done. (Notorious4life 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

Also, there are an unsual amount of recently created username votes on this discussion, and that does arouse the suspicion of sockpuppetry; their votes should surely be weighed less according to the warning template. (Notorious4life 04:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

• I just would like to ask everyone here to go to see all entries in Hsu and honestly ask yourself how many of them are more significant or notable than this person. If they can be listed, why can’t he be. It doesn’t make sense.

The guideline says

1. fan base: If the box on andrewhsu.com titled "ANDREW'S TAIWAN BOOK TOUR" (you have to scroll down) doesn't give evidence of a "large fan base,” what does? Again, how many in Hsu entries have a fan base such as this? They are listed.

2. book sales: which authors who are listed actually supply documentation on the sales figure of their books? Why ask for it from just one person? That is unfair.

I would like to make one thing real clear here. I did not send out any emails to anyone regarding this discussion forum. If I did, the site would be filled with many comments, I am sure.

I trust that the editors in wikipedia are fair, so I'll rest my case and leave this with them. Thank you. Solaroid

Comment Other articles aren't relevant. What is relevant is whether or not this subject is notable...and all signs point to no. If the other articles that you refer to have problems, then by all means, AfD them. But it has no bearing on this AfD.IrishGuy 07:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Solaroid, your argument is ridiculous and very humorous. By your logic, every thing in the world should be included in Wikipedia as long as it is not worse than the worst article. Comparing other articles is a terrible way of defending the importance of an article. You cannot make significance out of an article by pointing out articles that may be worst than it. Your befuddling comments are only antagonizing more people to vote for deletion. (Notorious4life 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

• Delete per nom, and a sockpuppet blitz is always a bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Google search does not turn up favourable results, autobiography sales figures are ambiguous. The article has been pumped up with facts that are irrelevant to his notability. While I do appreciate the enthusiasm and loyalty of the user(s) who have been creating accounts on Wikipedia to vote on this AfD, please note that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. The article can always be recreated if the subject gains more notability in future. — Tangotango 04:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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.