Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Namloyak

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. Rough consensus that available sources aren't suitable for notability purposes. ansh666 07:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Namloyak

Namloyak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:IRS.  Shobhit102 | talk  16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  Shobhit102 | talk  17:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Shobhit102 | talk  17:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article links to one reliable source I recognize, but its a dead link [www.abc.net.au/stateline/wa/content/2006/s2217239.htm] and searching that site does not reveal any mention of him. Someone who speaks Chinese will have to see if any of the Google news results are about the guy and give significant coverage. Dream Focus 19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't make a reasonable claim to notability. There are a lot of pseudo-noteworthy poets in all languages, and the "major publications" don't look all that major: Tibet’s first collection of poetry in prison might be noteworthy if it were sourced, but honestly it reads like an arbitrary criterion created to artificially make it "the first". No mention of him having received any major awards or the like. Most of the broken-link sources look like interviews, which are useless for GNG, and honestly when popular media in countries with geopolitical disputes with China (or even with sizable numbers of sinophobic racists) interview people who may be loosely associated with the Tibetan Government in Exile, that's arguably even worse than them just being interviews. Additionally, the article's being structured like a resumé is very suspect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The French interwiki is better detailed, and can be translated in English. I've started the translation. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rédacteur Tibet: Most of your recent additions are cited to primary, not independent, sources, some overtly nationalist and clearly biased. fr.wiki is not a reliable source, so your assertion that it provides non-trivial coverage is pretty useless for AFD. And you know the fr.wiki article is not a reliable source because you basically wrote and published the entire thing yourself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the fr.WP page based on available sources. Among them, there is, in particular, a precise biography of Namloyak by International Society for Human Rights. When I started the page on fr.WP on February 2015, the en.WP did existed (since 2011), based notably on sources from ABC and "www.penchinese.com" (Independent Chinese PEN Center, I beleive). --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is telling me that that source, which is 332 words long (not "trivial", but hardly in-depth) portrays him as a dissident, smuggler and exile, and doesn't make even the barest mention of his poetry. Also possibly worth noting is that that group's German home page has a "Tibetan flag" prominently displayed, and the English home page currently leads with a chop-suey piece of stereotypical "Chinese" tattoo-parlour gibberish that makes it kind of difficult to take seriously any legitimate concerns they might have about human rights in the PRC (and the fact that the piece itself, while undated, was clearly written in or before 2008 indicates that it's been there for a decade or more, indicating that either no one on the staff thought in all that time that maybe ridiculing the Chinese language with Fu Manchu stereotypes was counterproductive, or they know they are engaging in retrograde orientalism and are reveling in it). Anyway, as I said above, biased sources providing piecemeal coverage to someone known only for opposing the PRC's government, and indeed not even mentioning the stuff that our article is austensibly about, do not make a good case for keeping the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is mostly known as a political prisoner, and he is known under several names, which help finding other sources. Two are from Tibet Information Network (founded by Robert Barnett (scholar)), 1997 :[1] and 1999 : [2]. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, more biased sources that are of course going to give undue weight and not demonstrate that the subject is notable enough to be covered in a neutral encyclopedia? Also, nothing in the article implies he is "mostly known as a political prisoner". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, none of these sources are described as biased, neither TIN (and Robert Barnett), neither International Society for Human Rights. There is also biographical data on Namlo Yag by Congressional-Executive Commission on China. All these sources demonstrates the notability. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State-sponsored media in a country that opposes several of China's territorial claims are not biased on issues related to China's territorial claims? ISHR has an anti-Chinese racist caricature on its English homepage and has apparently done so for ten years running, and its German homepage explicitly promotes "Tibet independence": how could that not be biased? I have no idea why you keep bringing up Barnett, who isn't cited in the article under discussion; TIN is a WordPress blog and so uncitable for BLPs anyway, so it doesn't even matter if you say it is not biased. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there is no source supporting that ISHR promotes "Tibet independence". As for TIN, I quote James D. Seymour : Especially effective and reliable on Tibetan issues is Tibet Information Network (London) see item 20.. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding "sources" for AFD arguments over the reliability of sources is a violation of NOR and is almost always a sign of tendentious editing: they fly a "Tibetan flag" on their German homepage, and refer to "China and Tibet" as two separate "countries".[3] Demanding a secondary source despite this is just trolling. It is clear that you either don't understand what I am saying or are deliberately pretending not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is stuffed with PRIMARY sourcing and stuff form inside his particular activist bubble, but searches (using Latin alphabet spelling of name; did not search in other writing systems) of news, books, scholarly articles fail to turn up WP:SIGCOV, despite unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have included 3 "Tibet Information Network" sources in the page. I have also added references indicating his essays published by HRIC. I have added a reference (Namlo Yak: Poetry from Prison, p. 21, in Incomparable Warriors: Non-violent Resistance in Contemporary Tibet, ICT. 2005.), in which there is a short biography of Namloyak, and a description of his poetry and appreciation by a Tibetan scholar. There are other appreciations about his work in Chinese, but I'll need time to have hem translated. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rédacteur Tibet: You appear to have accessed those "Tibet Information Network" sources via the "Canada Tibet Committee" website. Can you clarify the connection between these two groups? Because the former is defunct and their website no longer live (apparently having been occupied by an unrelated domain squatter), and if the only way the sources can be accessed is via mirrors of questionable copyright status they violate WP:V and WP:ELNO. Additionally, you seem to have implied that original, now defunct, TIN was the brainchild of the author of those sources, which would make them very close to violating the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of WP:BLPSPS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 8 June 2018 (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.