Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Ji

{{ns:0|B}}

:{{la|Mason Ji}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mason_Ji Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mason Ji}})

Reads like a CV/autobiography. Overabundance of sources aside, there's no real notability to be found - there are plenty of Rhodes scholars and plenty of young U.N. delegates in this world. Additionally, some claims appear to be twisted; for example, no single source repeats the 'youngest delegate in history' claim. Other sources (namely, the ones hosted on Issuu) appear to be doctored, with the article's subject conveniently appearing on rehosted media and not the original copies (compare [https://unoda-web.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/UNDC_2014_LoP_Provisional.pdf the original U.N. documents] versus [https://issuu.com/undisarmament/docs/un_disarmament_commission_delegatio the rehosted ones]). m.o.p 20:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for pointing out the issues, and yes, I have looked into the sources that appear to have discrepancies with the other UN documents, and have deleted the sources that seem doctored (my apologies for not cross-checking properly). ALL problematic sources have been removed. The UN delegate in history claim was interpreted from multiple news sources that said that the subject was the youngest UN delegate, because it would appear to me that when news sources say "at age 18, he was the youngest UN delegate" could be extrapolated as such. I have deleted sentences that present potentially twisted claims. There was also a source from The Millennial Moment that did document him as the youngest in history, but it was also accompanied by a chapter from the subject himself, so I opted to remove it. Regardless, it is not customary to any degree to be a UN delegate at this age, since country delegates are usually Master's degree graduates, and even very young delegates are in their late-20s by the time they are granted a tour to the UN, with the majority of "young" UN delegates being in their 30s. I think that being a delegate at 18 is definitely something that is noteworthy in this respect, and I also believe notability is established because the subject's involvement seems to have spanned quite a large field, from climate change to nuclear disarmament, and being involved in working groups in addition to the General Assembly, which is also rare, and documented through multiple sources.

With regards to the article reading like a CV/autobiography, do you have any suggestions for revising it to be less so? I do think that the subject's age and contributions (both through the UN and through the White House Initiative on AAPIs) are noteworthy and meet notability requirements.

Jone.Hu (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)— Jone.Hu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete I now realize that the sources later added were problematic and that my statements above are too broad and relatively baseless. WP:TOOSOON Because of sourcing problems and insufficient UN sources otherwise, I change my vote to delete.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Certainly a well written CV, however puffery aside, significance of subject not clear from article nor does he seem to meet GNG in a VEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

:* Comment Thank you. Do the news sources and the magazine coverage of the subject not meet GNG? Those are reliable and significant coverages of the subject?Jone.Hu (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

::* Student magazines such as Yale Daily News for a Yale student would not typically establish much towards GNG. He's not there yet - not close.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment' There seems to be some debate over notability. Subject seems to have lots of source documentation, of which some are reliable, and it does seem that the subject has notable accomplishments (youngest delegate, White House Initiative etc.). I propose cutting down the article to stub length (and include only most reliable sources, like The Associated Press source, the China Hands Magazine source, and the Yale/Rhodes Trust news sources) and turn it into stub class instead of total deletion. Mrque12 (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC) — Mrque12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete After reading all these other contributors' comments, it seems to me that there is not enough notability to justify this article. I change my vote to delete, and perhaps to reintroduce the subject as an article in the future when better sourcing and more notability is established.Mrque12 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC) The previous two comments were left by a now-blocked sockpuppet account. m.o.p 19:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete Remaining articles on citations are still forged/have been edited to include lists of names which are not on original UN documents. The China Hands magazine source was written by students who attended the same undergraduate university in the same year as the subject. Most concerningly, there are no original UN sources which mention the subject of this article. The remaining sources to UN documents on external hosting site were added in October 2017 after this article was originally flagged as a hoax. Broader concerns about not only legitimacy of this page, but whether the subject has had the level of engagement with the UN cited here, and in articles that the subject claims to have engagement with the UN within.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.72 (talk • contribs)

:*Comment I think that the problem you point to is one of sourcing and not really one of legitimacy/hoax at large. UN functions are pretty opaque and there is just not enough publicly available sourcing to support. I do agree now that this page should be deleted, but I don't think the discussion should be about the subject himself being legitimate/not legitimate. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talk • contribs)

::*Comment There's a distinct difference between UN functions being opaque, and the absence of any UN sources mentioning the subject. Then, when this is raised in an earlier discussion about the article, five doctored sources appearing on a hosting site that have altered original UN documents. Whether the subject himself is legitimate is not relevant, but the doctoring of UN documents to include his name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.69 (talk • contribs)

:::*Comment You are right. I apologize for this. I was the one who included those sources and it was my fault for including them and not cross-checking them sufficiently. I will watch out for these in the future. Thank you for pointing this out.Jone.Hu (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. (plus some of the claims "youngest UN delegate ever" need better sourcing.) He is a Rhodes story, but we wait for Rhodes scholars to actually accomplish something before we write pages about them. Allow me to explain why. This story takes place at about this time of year in a student lounge at a graduate school that shall remain unnamed filled with nicely dressed students about to enjoy a formal dinner with the members of the faculty held welcome the newbies. One of the newly entered grad new students had pinned his Phi Beta kappa pin to his lapel. A student who had been there a year or two put his arm around the chap's shoulder and said: Son, we all have those. But we don't wear them. I advise Mr. Ji, or whoever wrote this page thinking he was doing Ji a favor, to put the Phi Beta Kappa pin back in his pocket. As this stage in a career, a scholar and a gentleman only embarrasses himself by boasting about his Rhodes scholarship on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you all for your comments. I agree now that the deletion should go forward until better sourcing is made available (most UN delegates' activities are not made publicly available, unfortunately) and more engagement by the subject is made available later in his career should those contributions be notable. I would like to change my previous vote to delete. Jone.Hu (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete "I also believe notability is established because the subject's involvement seems to have spanned quite a large field, from climate change to nuclear disarmament, and being involved in working groups in addition to the General Assembly" there is no evidence of this in any UN documentation. You are simply going off what the subject has said in interviews. The fact that fabricated documents uploaded in 2017 have been fabricated to indicate this is very concerning indeed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.69 (talk • contribs)

:*Comment I was. You are right. Those documents were obtained from scans, but I wasn't aware that there were discrepancies. I'm so, so sorry for all this confusion! Please do go ahead with the deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talk • contribs)

::*Comment Scans from where? Seems unlikely that the 2013 Blue Book and other lists of delegates would all be specifically doctored to include the subject. Why not just link to the original UN documents in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.69 (talk • contribs)

:::*Comment The blue book I could not find online, so I went to a friend who had a scanned copy, the other documents were committee working documents passed internally and then archived at the UN library that were not made available online...I know I've done wrong here and should have linked to original documents. I would like to make known that there were no explicit attempts at doctoring. Apologies again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone.Hu (talk • contribs)

::::*Comment"the other documents were committee working documents passed internally and then archived at the UN library that were not made available online" this is plainly untrue. All these documents (including the Blue Book) are available online - just all (mysteriously) without the subject's name in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.72 (talk • contribs)

::::*Comment Thanks so much for all your comments--I'm learning a lot and will be more diligent in my future article contributions. All I could say is that I was told that these were committee drafts, which were draft documents, be it letters, statements, or resolutions (not the final version released to the public, which do not list delegates' names), that list delegates' names solely for record purposes. That's what I was told, beyond that, I don't know. If you notice, the final drafts posted online only list countries or not even that, because those are the final versions. Regardless, you have a very valid concern and I sincerely thank you for voicing your opinions. The other contributors seem to be focusing more on notability, so I think we should probably end this discussion here. I really appreciate it. Jone.Hu (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

::::::File:Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: Thank you both for your contributions. However, this discussion doesn't really belong on AFD. m.o.p 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)}}

{{clear}}

: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.