Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mergan Ghappar

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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mergan Ghappar[edit]

[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)

WP:BLP1E. There is no indication he is notable for any other reason than being held at a COVID-19 isolation facility (or, allegedly, a re-education camp).

The whole basis of the reporting from BBC et al is questionable, compare Prof. Jame Millward's (who was cited in the BBC link) WeChat screenshots from Ghapper's with the original. Note

The lack of the Mandarin profanity "SB" in the first screenshot of altered text at the Millward piece
The lack of the policeman emojis in the original, but littered all over the Millward screenshots CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My view is the subject meets WP:GNG on the basis of media coverage. The progenitor for recent coverage of Ghappar is a BBC article that has since been referenced by many other WP:RS; howeber, a quick off-wiki search turns up resulting in many English-language sources (Business Insider, The Guardian, Armenian Reporter, WION, etc) and a number of foreign language sources (Sindonews, Yahoo News (French), Republica). This is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO given the level of interest, and while most sources give the BBC article a majority of the credit, some (like the Yahoonews.fr source or this [https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/08/05/merdan-ghappar-had-niets-met-politiek-maar-zit-toch-in-een-chinees-strafkamp-a4007941 Dutch article (NRC Handelsblad) are not only reporting on the BBC's coverage but are also providing their own analysis of the texts and video the BBC published. This, in total, is enough to meet WP:GNG. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the nomination point strayed somewhat from the purpose of an AfD (see "or, allegedly, a re-education camp"). As an encyclopedia, we assume that WP:RS like the BBC have done their due diligence in reporting; if the nominator thinks the BBC made a mistake and published a misleading story, that is an issue for WP:RSN and not a discussion on notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo News (French) and nrc.nl link provide no additional "analysis" beyond Millward's translations, please do not pretend otherwise. All of the pieces (whether credited to the BBC or no) ultimately center around Ghapper's confinement, and you omit that WP:GNG states that A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article; in other words, 'significant coverage' is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stand-alone article. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is intentionally broad - notice it does not place any definite barrier to entry for an article, instead relying on presumptions and discussions (like this). As for the examples I gave, the Yahoo News.fr source links a tweet (made by Human Rights Watch's China director) discussing the case and provides more observations from Ghappar's video (it also reports on the BBC coverage), while the Dutch source (NRC) is capped with an analysis of the importance of Ghappar's material by Adrian Zenz - which a quick search shows is not in the BBC article. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, both "analyses" stem entirely from Ghapper's confinement, not any other aspects of his life that we do not already know about (e.g. birth in Kucha, Taobao modeling, previously in Guangzhou). Considering the controversy at Talk:Adrian Zenz, Zenz should not be used as a gauge on "importance" for anything but himself, the Jamestown Foundation, and Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary (Wikipedia:NTEMP). If a topic has accrued significant coverage (my case for GNG is outlined above) once, it is presumed to meet GNG. As for Adrian Zenz, the veracity of his statements and opinions is not what is being considered here. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The BLP1E argument is a red herring. As the subject is the central figure in the event, BLP1E would not call for deletion, but a decision as to whether to reframe the argument as "Detention of Mergan Ghappar". But BLP1E on its face does not apply; Ghappar was involved in at least three noteworthy events: two discrete detentions, and smuggling out information on conditions in concentration camps.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage of the detention meets WP:GNG per SamHolt6, although the article may need to be moved to Detention of Merdan Ghappar if coverage of Ghappar's life before detention remains sparse. Note that most English-language reliable sources use the name "Merdan Ghappar" instead of "Mergan Ghappar". — Newslinger talk 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tip about some sources referring to the subject as "Merdan Ghappar" returns more sources (for those interested). For example, this article published in India Today seems to be adding to the story (it mentions that some claim Ghappar's brother has also been incarcerated, which was not mentioned in the BBC article) implying continuing coverage of the topic. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is sufficient to satisfy GNG as per SamHolt6. Article may need a rename, but it should not be deleted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:GNG - widely reported. A rename to something like "Detentions of and direct report by Merdan Ghappar from a Xinjiang concentration camp" is a different issue (this particular suggestion for a rename is unlikely to satisfy WP:TITLE). Boud (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, almost nothing is known about Xinjiang. I had people calling for the deletion of the sole state-run media organ of Xinjiang Tianshannet not too long ago, and I have done work-ups on stubs in Xinjiang for areas larger than many countries. If it is deleted, the info should be rolled into another page and not deleted to be forgetten. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG. Agree that a retitling might be necessary but the article should be kept. -- Dane ^talk 02:58, 9 August 2020 (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.