Shi Xing Mi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am the person who originally created the article, as I am a student of Master Shi Xing Mi and work in media, and I also edited it with over 20 sources following the notice of deletion.

Master Shi Xing Mi has hundreds of international sources, from prestigious publications such as Forbes and NYP, to government institutions and large international corporations. He is the most quoted and published Shaolin Master globally, with 4 books published by the likes of Random House and Mondadori, as well as the Co-Founder of two international wellness and fitness companies with hundreds of employees.

Despite providing over 20 such sources in the Wikipedia article, as well as hundreds more being available to anyone with just a single Google search, a Wikipedia moderator deleted it citing "no independent sources". Without being sarcastic, I don't think Master Shi Xing Mi owns dozens of top international magazines and newspapers, global book editors, government institution and many other such sources. They are clearly impeccable independent sources.

The deletion is thus completely unfounded and arbitrary; furthermore, there are dozens of Wikipedia pages about living people who comparatively have a miniscule number of sources, yet are considered compliant. Oddly, Shi Xing Mi's own Master, Shi De Yang, has 1 (one) source which is his own website, yet it's considered acceptable. Shi Xing Mi, who by the way is mentioned in Shi De Yang's Wikipedia page, has hundreds of sources but is not acceptable.

Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.71.123 ( talk • contribs)

• Obvious Endorse. The DRV instructions should have pointed the appellant to REFUND_to_draftspace. Support draftification, but with no promise that this will lead to sufficient improvement for return to mainspace, but because draftspace is the right venue and forum to work through issues of sufficient sourcing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The deletion was not arbitrary, and the close was correct. The appellant should be advised to register an account, and to ask for advice at the Teahouse about writing a biography of a living person. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Clearly correct result of the deletion discussion. Given the COI here, I'm less willing to refund to draft space. SportingFlyer T· C 19:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Draftspace is where COI editors should be sent. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse – Nothing wrong with the close. However I would support a draft to go through AfC, because of the conflict of interest and because the sourcing needs to be improved (the person writing this seems to use not usable sources like New York Post, TED, etc. TLA ^tlak 15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as there was a consensus to delete which can't come and didn't come from some arbitrary opinions but came from relevant critique of the sources in terms of their quality, irrespective of their quantity. No comment or opinion on undeletion to draft, which was not requested by the appellant.— Alalch E. 17:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yitzhak Reiter ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

AfD discussion focused on notability and ignored that the page is supported by 0 independent sources. Furthermore, significant contributions were made to the page by a since banned COI editor. Though sufficiently notable, the page should be deleted per WP:TNT in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk • contribs) This can be considered withdrawn by nominator IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 00:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Other than the appellant, who was the AfD's nom, views were unanimous to keep, and it was obviously closed as such. Yes, participants focused on the subject's notability, exactly as they should. Source independence was addressed in the AfD by SportingFlyer. I'd like to remind the appellant that per WP:NEXIST, notability is determined by the existence of sources, not by the state of sourcing in the article. Also, we don't delete an article just because a banned COI editor contributed to it. The WP:TNT essay is not a deletion policy. If you have trouble creating a new version of the article while the old one is in place, go edit the new version in draftspace or offline. I think the appellant is being disingenuous about the "starting over" part of WP:TNT, as they clearly have no intention of improving the article, and are only interested in removing it. Owen× ☎ 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  If I'm allowed to reply here: I personally have no intention of recreating the page if it was deleted, but other editors would have the opportunity to do so. I considered trying to improve the article instead of requesting its deletion but I didn't have enough interest to do so. If this deletion request fails then I will find RS and I'll reduce the article, probably to a stub, with information only taken from whatever one or two RS I can find. Would that be the best way forward in your opinion? Also, I don't understand how an article can be allowed to exist with no reliable sources. or are the Yitzhak Reiter sources considered valid RS for this article even though they lack independence? Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 11:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Also, I believe I've misunderstood WP:TNT and clearly I am rather ignorant of AfD policies. If this is an obvious keep then you can consider my nomination for review to be withdrawn. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 11:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Amended 11:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ IOHANNVSVERVS: WP:TNT is very, very rarely used to completely delete a page. Usually it means the subject is notable, but the content on the page needs to be completely rewritten. I think it's close to the case here, so I wouldn't be afraid to cull anything that wasn't written neutrally. I'd close this as withdrawn as well, but I participated in the AfD. SportingFlyer T· C 12:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, I misunderstood WP:TNT and only now am realizing the significance of AfD is not cleanup.

  You mention culling anything that wasn't written neutrally, but doesn't everything that isn't sourced need to go? I plan on finding one or more RS and basically rewriting the article leaving it a stub. Is that the best way forward?

  - IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 13:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ IOHANNVSVERVS: It doesn't need to be a stub per se, but I would support those actions. SportingFlyer T· C 13:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  No worries; many here mistake WP:TNT for a deletion policy, when it actually is an essay about editorial preferences. I've stricken out my comment about your perceived intentions. Owen× ☎ 21:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ OwenX, I appreciate that. It's totally understandable you would have gotten that impression.

  I've overhauled the page. Any feedback would be appreciated.

  @ SportingFlyer also.

  - IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Problem now is you have to go back in and add references. SportingFlyer T· C 23:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure what you mean. I added two sources to the article. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The discussion was quite clearly a keep with several noting the article needed significant improvement. -- Whpq ( talk) 11:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The content is not contrary to policy. The claims about this living person made do not seem like contentious claims. There can always be a consensus to keep a page such as this one, and there was a consensus to keep this page.— Alalch E. 00:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if this is still pending. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion We don't do unsourced BLPs. Let alone any COI issues, that alone is enough. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Andy Dingley, the contested AfD was closed as "keep", not "delete". Do you want to clarify your opinion? Sandstein 14:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete however clearly I can make it. We don't (?) do unsourced promotional BLPs. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply