Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis W. Chiu

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis W. Chiu

Dennis W. Chiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Essentially, he's a lawyer who was appointed to a local planning commision (not elected). There's nothing cited in secondary sources that establishes notability. Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Chiu is notable and should not be deleted. Editors have removed so much information in the current version Chiu's Wikipedia article from the one just available 45 days ago that he does not appear to be notable in current form. If you Google "Dennis Chiu" and "obscenity" a myriad of third party professional and reputable third party journals will arise, due to his 1995 authorship of an article that called for "national community standards" for judging material as whether materials are legally obscene when transmitted over the Internet. LexisNexis, the world's largest electronic database for legal and public-records related information proclaimed Chiu's article on obscenity a "litigation essential". (See https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=36+Santa+Clara+L.+Rev.+185&key=95a34af95c71002b3313b176fc5777e9) However, based on Users Bbb23 and OrangeMike's overzealous editing that information was removed.

If you Google "Dennis Chiu" and "media bias" you will find that his article with John Zaller has had a profound effect in proving how elite opinion (talking heads/government officials) affects how news media slants coverage. In Andre Billeaudeaux, David Domke, John S. Hutcheson and Philip A. Garland's 2003 article, "News Norms, Indexing and a Unified Government Reporting during the early stages of a Global War on Terror" (featured in The Global Media Journal), the scholars write: "In Zaller and Chiu’s (1996) examination of U.S. news coverage of foreign policy crisis, they refined indexing theory by providing 'narrower' and more 'situational rules' for news trend coverage during foreign policy crisis, or emergency situations. These situations defined and predicted how journalists would slant foreign policy coverage as either 'hawkish' in favor of aggressive foreign policy action or 'dovish' representing a more cautious approach for foreign policy. These measurements were found to happen at key points in foreign policy conflicts, leading Zaller and Chiu to hypothesize that the press indexes its coverage to the views of different actors at different points in a crisis: to the president at the first emergence of a crisis, to the Congress as events begin to settle down and to the opinion of non-politicians (such as experts or the public at large), in cases in which the crisis persists over a long period of time." (See http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/fa03/gmj-fa03-bdhg1.htm). Yet, conveniently Bbb23 and OrangeMike deleted the footnotes supporting for the significance of the Chiu-Zaller piece from Chiu's Wikipedia bio.

Furthermore, if you Google, "Dennis Chiu" and "Asian fundraising scandal" you will find a 1999 Asian Week newspaper article that states: "Despite the 1996 fundraising scandal, Asian Americans remain very much a part of the California Democratic Party, said Dennis Chiu, president of the Silicon Valley Asian Democratic Club, with 200 members. 'Two years ago, we met with Roy Romer from the Democratic National Committee to talk about the Asian American fundraising scandal,' he recalled, saying that the party, too, wanted to 'not repeat the events that led to that situation two years ago.' To that end, the party worked to re-create the APA caucus and issued a statement supporting it, Chiu said. And after Gov. Gray Davis won re-election in 1998, his office invited Chiu’s 200-member club to suggest possible appointees. Such overtures have helped bring about what Chiu called a 'renaissance period of Asian American involvement in politics in Silicon Valley.' " Yet, Bbb23 and OrangeMike proclaim that Chiu is not notable when he had a reported affect on the Democratic National Committee, California Democratic Party and worked with California Governor Gray Davis to appoint Asian Americans to state positions. Yet for Bbb23 and Orange Mike, Chiu is still not notable. (See http://asianweek.com/040199/Demsmeetinsac.html)

Additionally Chiu is not only an attorney that was appointed to the Santa Clara County planning commission. He was Treasurer and Legal Counsel for the Santa Clara County Democratic Party. In this capacity Chiu drafted a resolution for the California Democratic Party to criticize the Democratic National Committee regarding the attempt to not take political contributions from Asian donors with Asian last names. Emy Thurber "commended Dennis Chiu for doing a great job on his resolution and announced that Dennis’ resolution was the one voted on by the committee and this resolution's precise language was adopted by the California State Democratic Party. (Emphasis added) (See http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/030403.htm); see also http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/010301minutes.htm; see also http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/030206.htm; http://sccdcc.mn.sabren.com/archives/minutes/030306.htm) Yet, Bbb23 and OrangeMike still claim Chiu is not notable and should be deleted.

OrangeMike and Bbb23 may have good intentions, by they delete references from reputable third party journals and third party journal articles and sources that make the case for Chiu's notability.

The facts, quotes and citations discussed above argue that Chiu is notable and it can be documented by verifiable souces as quoted and listed above -- that is unless OrangeMike and Bbb23 continue to delete the verifiable sources that make Chiu notable.

If Wikipedia users allows OrangeMike and Bbb23 to delete Chiu's biography, then they will verify a methodology for bullying articles off the website - first delete the sources that make a subject notable, then wait until there is nothing hardly notable left and recommend the article for deletion. This is hardly unbiased editing. --Paulsanjose | Talk 07:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Ever seem WP:TLDR? As to your refs: 1 is LexisNexis' advertising blurb for a document Chiu wrote and they published - fails WP:PRIMARY, and does not discuss Chiu himself. 2 is a passing mention of Chiu's name whilst citing one of his works - not coverage of Chiu himself. 3 is a quote from Chiu in an opinion piece, not coverage of Chiu himself. 4 and the rest of the Santa Clara minutes are minor mentions, and again, do not cover Chiu himself. Bbb23 was absolutely correct to remove these, they have no bearing on the subject's notability. Delete per failure of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Yunshui (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not DeleteHow can you vote on deletion when you indicate WP:TLDR which implies the comments supporting non-deletion were too lengthy to read? I strongly disagree with the dismissal of the LexisNexis citation 1, how do you know that the LexisNexis blurb about Chiu's article as a "litigation essential" is advertisement; it doesn't say its advertisement. It says that Chiu's article is a litigation essential. As the largest legal reference in the world, I took it as a declaration and not advertisement. I also disagree with your comment about 2, the article discusses Zaller and Chiu's proof and theory and its contribution to the understanding of media bias. Further I disagree with your critique of 3; The reporter's article was on Democrats meeting in Sacramento and the influence of Asian Americans. Chiu was cited as a legitimate and credible reference to cite in the piece on the influence of Asian Americans in the Democratic Party meeting in Sacramento. Finally, 4 was not a minor mention -- Chiu was singled out for specific mention for his work. "Commending" Chiu for his work at the California Democratic Party convention is a specific calling out of Chiu, and by definition, the special statement is not a minor mention in the minutes. Chiu's article should not be deleted per WP:Notability because he is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"; nor WP:GNG because he made a recognizable and enduring contribution to U.S. constitutional law on obscenity, and the study of media bias, nor WP:POLITICIAN because his position as a County Planning Commissioner for 11 years who has decided on what is built in the Silicon Valley qualifies him under criteria two - member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city or area; (I hope you are not claiming you that the Silicon Valley is not a major metropolitan area).--Paulsanjose | Talk 08:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. It's not a "major metropolitan area". The criterion reads: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Even if you change city to county, Chiu is not a "member of the main countywide government". That would be the board of supervisors. Chiu was appointed to the planning commission by the board. Not at all the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment. The Santa Clara County Planning Commission is the final deciding body in several areas for the Board of Supervisors, and under county charter is part of the Board of Supervisors, but is a delegated body to oversee certain issues. That is why County Planning Commissioners must report all gifts, like any other elected official in California, to the Fair Political Practices Commission, because there is the opportunity to unduly influence planning commissioners financially. In the State of California, whether a planning commissioner is appointed or elected, the State views them equal in reporting requirements to the Board of Supervisors because of their enormous influence on major metropolitan areas. I'm sorry. Your point is inaccurate; it is the same thing. --Paulsanjose | Talk 08:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

LexisNexis are selling the article you have linked to. How can you possibly claim that isn't advertising? You also fails to address the main point of my rebuttal with regards to the other sources; namely, none of your sources are about Chiu. Yunshui (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are making an inappropriate logical argument. Books are for sale, but that doesn't mean what the publisher says about the book is not credible or true. Your argument implies that advertisements are always untrue. Chiu's article is for sale, but it does not necessarily follow that LexisNexis' statement that it is a litigation essential is not true. I rebutted every reason set forth for deletion under WP:Notability, WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN which is the subject of this page. By rebutting the WP policies cited for deletion, I rebutted the reason for deletion. If you want to cite any other WP policies for deletions I would be happy to address them. (However, it is 2:15 AM Pacific Time and I must address any tomorrow.)--Paulsanjose | Talk 09:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, in fact, what the publisher says about a book it is selling is notoriously not credible! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument does not imply that advertisments are always false, but when you've worked with LexisNexis and other legal publishers for as long as I have, you quickly come to realise that everything they sell is a "litigation essential" (a phrase which doesn't appear on the linked page, btw) or similarly puffed up. It's just ad-speak, it's meaningless. In any case, notability is NOTINHERITED; he could have written the defining legal text of his era and still fail to be notable in his own right.

Per the rest, frankly this is becoming tiresome. Point me to a source that discusses Chiu; not that cites him, quotes him, or mentions him in passing in the minutes of a meeting he didn't even attend. Then I'll be up for discussing this deletion further. Yunshui (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a law review article (actually a comment, which is less than an article). Lots of lawyers, law professors, and law school students write law review articles. In this instance, Chiu wrote it when he was a student at Santa Clara for the Santa Clara law review. The article is carried on Lexis, just like Lexis carries other legal documents. Lexis is an online subscription database that charges for access. The term "litigation essentials" has no significance. It's just a commercial term that Lexis uses that sounds catchy. There's nothing inherently notable about being the author of a law review article. It has greater significance if it's cited in any legal opinions, which, as far as I know, Chiu's was not (it was cited by other law review articles).--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that start a scholarly debate, 12 years in advance of a change to U.S. constitutional law on whether obscenity should be judged by local community standards as opposed to national community standards is a legal writing of significant impact. Courts often do not cite law review articles, because they seek to find it in appellate court precedent. In U.S. v. Kilbride, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a national community standard should be applied to obscenity over the Internet from a very tenuous citation to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The law review articles that cite the end to the scholarly debate with Kilbride specifically reference Chiu's contribution as part of the scholarly debate. However, conveniently you edited out the law review article that notes how the scholarly debate affected the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Also please do not create a situation where I report you for vandalism. Per WP:Vandalism I have given you two warnings - one for reverting my most recent edit to Dennis W. Chiu and for altering My Talk page. If we are going to have a discussion, then let's have a discussion here. Your right to delete and modify articles is a privilege, please do not abuse it. I have reviewed WP policy and am ready to have a discussion.--Paulsanjose | Talk 09:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I doubt you or this article will survive on Wikipedia, so for the moment, I'm not going to pursue your absurd accusations of vandalism in a forum where you could be sanctioned, but vandalism is not a term to be bandied about. You added information to my Talk page, which I removed as is my right. You then reverted my removal. I left you a warning on your Talk page about your reversion. It is that warning that you are referring to as "vandalism". You have the right to remove the warning, but you do not have the right to label it vandalism. Your changes to the Chiu article itself are as inappropriate as most of your changes have been, which is why I removed them. Again, to label my removal "vandalism" is incorrect. I'm not going to edit-war with you over the changes to the Chiu article because it's unlikely to matter. Editors here will make up their own minds about Chiu's notability, with or without your "contributions". But stop using the word "vandalism" when it doesn't apply. Such a practice is severely frowned upon at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not use the word lightly, but the discussion can't always be you're right and I'm wrong. That's not a discussion. I will not undue my additions to your talk page again, if you do not alter mine. However, I was having difficulty communicating with you. I am willing to allow the community to read all of this and decide, but I was feeling bullied by you and I needed to push back in as professional a way possible. Because I was feeling bullied and after looking back over the editing history for Chiu, there was a strong possibility you had systematically used a methodology to set the Chiu article up for deletion, I began to honestly doubt your edits were in good faith, hence I looked up the WP policy and used the word. I understand the practice is frowned upon, and I do not use it lightly and never will. --Paulsanjose | Talk 10:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is getting very far afield of the AfD, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings as to how Wikipedia works. Unless I am blocked from doing so, I will always post warnings on a user's Talk page if I feel the user warrants the warning. So, I won't promise not to "alter" your Talk page. Posting a warning is NOT the same thing as your adding comments to my Talk page, my removing them, and then your reverting my removal. That is impermissible, which is why I left you the warning. As for the bullying, it's really that I disagree with just about all of your edits and I'm forceful in doing so. However, I can imagine from your perspective that that feels like bullying.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that your forcefulness could be perceived as bullying. For the record, I object to your attempt to delete an argument off of my Talk Page at line 107, which I undid. But I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what is notable which will be decided by the community. --Paulsanjose | Talk 11:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)— Paulsanjose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I deleted nothing from your Talk page - I added something. Here's the diff (line 107).--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom - planning officer of minor independent note - Conflict of interest creation or it wouldn't exist. Far too many primary and legal cites that do nothing to assert notability. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Against Deletion A County Planning Commissioner overseeing the Silicon Valley is not a "planning officer". The Planning Commission is a quasi-judicial body that makes legal findings and has the final say on many issues that affect how a community looks and develops for decades to come. According to the County of Santa Clara, where Chiu sits, "The Santa Clara County Planning Commission is a seven-member body of community representatives appointed by the Board of Supervisors. It is the primary decision-making authority for certain development applications, and it advises the Board of Supervisors on various land-use policy matters." (http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/planning/agencychp?path=%2Fv7%2FPlanning%2C%20Office%20of%20(DEP)%2FAbout%20Us%2FPlanning%20Commission). From 30 days ago, before it was deleted, Chiu's article explained why his work on the planning commission had been important: "On the Santa Clara County Planning Commission,[1] Chiu has participated in most of the major land use decisions in the Silicon Valley, California, since the turn of the 21st Century. Chiu has participated in deciding the balance between development with preservation of the Santa Clara County foothills, reviewing the Viewshed Protection Plan that preserves the view of the hillsides from major highways and other significant points from the valley floor,^[1] updates to the Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinances,^[2][2] and Stanford University's Community Plan & General Use Permit (GUP) for academic growth and development.[3]" To add onto the importance of his role on the county planning commission, the following reference was made regarding Chiu's role in approval of Stanford University's GUP: "Stanford University's Community Plan & General Use Permit (GUP) for academic growth and development.^[3]" --Paulsanjose | Talk 21:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulsanjose, you seriously need to look at WP:V. 1 doesn't mention Chiu on the linked page, although he is referred to in their other pages - which is to be expected, he works there. I'm listed on my employer's website too, so do I merit a Wikipedia article? 2 doesn't mention Chiu. At all. Not to quote him, not as a passing mention - his name just isn't there. Same goes for 3, a footnote in which "The Santa Clara County Planning Office gratefully acknowledges the many individuals and representatives of groups who have participated in the Stanford Community Plan process since its beginning." Presumably Chiu is included in there, since he's one of those individuals and representatives - but it tells us precisely nothing about the man; hell, it wouldn't even do as a reference to verify his existence. If this is the best you have as evidence of notability, you need to drop the STICK. Yunshui (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite the assertion by the article's main defender that he/she "learned historiography and biography from the protege of Pulitzer Prize winning historian Richard Hofstadter at Columbia" [4] -- whatever that was supposed to tell us. There's just not the secondary coverage needed. EEng (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete User:Paulsanjose makes two arguments for keeping the article. (BTW Paul, I admire your passion, but please refrain from attacking other editors or accusing them of bad faith.) The first argument is WP:GNG. That would require that the subject has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. But the sources you have offered do not add up to significant coverage, and a search of the Google News Archive finds only passing mentions, such as quotes from him in a story about something else. The other justification you offer is WP:POLITICIAN, but being a member of a planning commission (even a powerful planning commission in an important area) does not provide automatic notability. One other possible justification for keeping the article could be WP:SCHOLAR. Google Scholar finds that a paper/book chapter he co-wrote has been cited by others more than 100 times, and that his obscenity article in the Santa Clara Law review has been cited 29 times, and that seems to be it; this does not amount to a significant enough contribution to the field to establish him as an important scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage about the subject; this person has almost zero. Nor does he garner notability from his minor civic role. JFHJr (㊟) 13:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - while I would not consider him notable as an attorney or as a politician, I am sure that an argument could be made in his favor. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. I don't understand. Your comment begs the question what argument?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2011 (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.