Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhou Shimiao

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. RL0919 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Shimiao

[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)

I can find no sources other than documents associated with the lawsuit mentioned in the article and the Pacific Rim Construction articles cited (which have no byline and appear to be based on media releases) that mention, much less establish any claim for the notability of, the subject. The article's author insists that the subject is "internationally acclaimed" (as one of the PRC articles states) and notable, but at this point neither the article content nor the sources cited indicate why the subject would or should be. Being the subject of litigation is certainly not alone a reason for notability. General Ization ^Talk 05:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that, while the creator asserts the subject is "acclaimed", the content of the present article is overwhelmingly negative concerning the subject. It primarily documents a claim that the subject embezzled from his firm, a claim that appears to have been settled under seal and so cannot be readily refuted. An effort at character assassination may be the article's primary purpose for being here. General Ization ^Talk 13:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of article is not notable in its own right. At best single event and inherited. I cannot find any appropriate IRS. Possible redirect to Marshall Strabala#Breakup and Lawsuits. Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qiao Zhang, but since it is not currently, I have cut and pasted my comment from there to this discussion. I think it applies equally here.

I think the coverage of this person meets WP:BIO. I understand it is not actual policy, but I think Wikipedia:Notability_(architecture)#Architects can inform things, too. In addition to the sources already in the article, his firm's website (though not a third party reference, to be sure) lists some projects that seem important, though I am no expert.[1] And there is at least one Chinese language source that talks more about his old firm's dissolution and lawsuits. [2] In fact, it was an anonymous editor that kept adding this reference to Marshall Strabala that got me to look into this individual and his firm partner for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Google translation of this source leads me to believe there are alternate ways to transliterate this person's name. And I am sure somebody more capable than me can do more effective native searches in Mandarin. Seeing as he is based in China, and based on the English sourcing available, I would expect there to be more references available in Chinese.

Further, despite General Ization's claim that I assert this architect is "acclaimed," if one read's the article, my talk page post, and edit summaries, one would see that I am just reciting what a source said. I have no idea whether his peers (or anybody else) actually acclaim him or not.

And to briefly address what appear to me to be an ad hominem attack on me alleging I had somehow improper motives for creating the article (of course, the article can have no motive for existing, only the article's first editor for creating it), which the General seems to acknowledge is at odds with his (inaccurate) characterization of my view of whether the architect is acclaimed: if this article is "character assassination," the text of the article indicates I am a terrible character assassin, or at least a straightforward and boring one. But I will assume good faith and assume the General did not mean to disparage me personally.

In sum, from what I have read online, I think this individual (if not the article itself) meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No intent to disparage you personally; my comments were an assessment of the present state of the article, and the fact that 80% of it concerns legal claims against the subject rather than their accomplishments led to my speculation. That the firm's Web site may describe some important projects is irrelevant unless it also clearly shows that the subject was somehow important to development or realization of one or more projects. (As near as I can tell, it doesn't, and he is no longer with the firm.) There are two separate AfDs because they are presumably two separate people, and the discussion of the notability or lack of one shouldn't influence the discussion of the other. General Ization ^Talk 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the firm link I pasted above is his current firm. It looks like he is one of two partners (the other being the subject of the other related article you sent to AfD), so it stands to reason he is involved with some or all of the projects. It looks to me like the page does claim he and his partner were directly involved in those projects. And per N, notability is determined based on the subject, not the state of the article. As for whether to combine the AfD, it is your AfD nomination; I'll copy and paste this comment to the other one, too. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find much about him even in Chinese sources. He is mentioned in a number of articles with Qiao Zhang, but Qiao Zhang appears to be the chief architect in their new practice and there are more sources about him. The lawsuit does not confer notability, and it is not clear how significant he was in the firm with Strabala, simply being a partner is not by itself notable. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Hzh (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow closure together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qiao Zhang, which has also been relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2019 (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.