Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Wang

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 redirect to Taiwan frigate scandal. Content remains available under the redirect for those wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Wang

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bruno Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains harmful inaccuracies which are not adequately supported by the citations provided, which is impermissible in an article which falls under BLP rules. It should be deleted to avoid misinformation, but also because Bruno Wang, the article subject, is low profile and does not meet significant coverage standards according to WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited because of his father's (and not his) alleged involvement in a Taiwanese frigate scandal, which was also a single event. The article subject was in fact a student in the United States of America when these events took place.

The claims in the article that "Bruno and his father Andrew are key figures in the Taiwan frigate scandal with Bruno allegedly connected to the murder of Capt. Yin Ching-feng." is untrue about the article subject and not adequately sourced for a BLP. The source (irishtimes.com) alleges that Andrew Wang was connected to the alleged murder (which is untrue) but does not suggest that the article subject was. Similarly, the lead that the article subject is a "fugitive best known for his involvement in the Taiwan frigate scandal" is incorrect and unsourced. Only the article subject’s father was suspected to have been involved and the article subject has in fact been found by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in 2019 to be an "innocent third party."

The remainder of the page is commentary on the article subject's philanthropic activities, and the citations linked to these points indicate a low level of media coverage/interest.

In the interest of transparency, I have a connection to the article subject. info-en-q@wikimedia.org advised submitting a deletion request after they were emailed. Tidesino (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, coverage is overwhelming and the subject does a lot of self promotion so they are most definitely a public figure (low profile people generally don't have their own promotional websites[1]). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is still relatively unknown [prior rationale snipped], and he hasnt been convicted so I think a BLPREQUESTDELETE should be accepted. Jumpytoo Talk 06:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jumpytoo: there is no grounds to honor a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE where a subject meets WP:GNG as this one does. Also note that this is not a BLPREQUESTDELETE case as it is not being requested by the subject of the article, it only applies "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion," which hasn't happened here. Please also note that using the Daily Mail in that manner is a WP:BLP violation, please remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if GNG is met, I believe BLPREQUESTDELETE can still be applied, the WP notability stems from the WP:BLPCRIME content and as they are still only accusations I believe much more leeway can be given here (I could not find significant coverage about him that is mainly focused on his philanthropy, if such sources do exist on the other ventures alone that can meet NBIO then I can reconsider). Regarding if it is the article subject who requested this, I assumed it is someone authorized to speak on his behalf based off the COI disclosure, but I could be wrong here. @Tidesino:, would you like to elaborate on your connection to the subject, and what prompted you to request deletion? Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Jumptytoo:, I can confirm that I am Mr Wang's advisor (hence my COI disclosure) and I am authorised to make this request on his behalf. I was prompted to do so after emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org for advice - the editor who picked up the email advised that submitting a deletion request was the most appropriate course of action. Tidesino (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of our coverage is about the crime per say, the related coverage we have seems to be about what happened to the proceeds of crime which is a little different (clearly not WP:1E). The coverage of his involvement in the prince's cash for honor scandal for example. Also note that page had 987 visitors in the last month, not what one would expect for a low profile figure or someone known only for a crime committed 20+ years ago (and again, he has a promotional website so he does not qualify as a low profile figure... Its hard to conceive of a way in which having your own purely promotional website does not qualify as "actively seek out media attention"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many low-profile people have their own websites to express themselves professionally (I have one myself), so I wouldn't put too much on that. I also believe implying usage of dirty money still fits in WP:BLPCRIME. Maybe an article on Andrew Wang is possible if the WP:1E issue regarding him could be surmounted, in which case an redirection is possible as ATD. But because BLP applies to Bruno I just think its better to be safe than sorry. Jumpytoo Talk 05:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is circular and without a logical basis. You could just as easily conclude that you are a public figure, particularly if that website is actually published under your own name (remember that we hold bloggers and citizen journalists to be public figures). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is difficult to reconcile the "low profile" claim with him creating a company called Bruno Wang Productions, being a spokesperson for the organization, hiring a PR agency (close up media) to promote statements from Bruno Wang about Bruno Wang Productions.[1] Those actions seems like someone seeking publicity. Then I see that he is in the news, not because of his father's actions, but because he gave 500,000 to Prince Charles. I think he is notable. I think if there are inaccuracies you should draw attention to them and show sources that refute them on the talk page of the article. CT55555 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bruno Wang Productions: 'People, Places and Things' Secures Nominations for 4 Olivier Awards." Wireless News, 12 Apr. 2016. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A449179767/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=f7d52821. Accessed 5 May 2022.
On the topic of whether Mr Wang is low-profile/self-promoting, he has business interests and it is necessary to provide updates about those businesses in the way that many non-notable business people and companies do. Regarding the news you mention, Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue. Moreover, the donation amount referred to is inaccurate as the £500,000 is attributed to a different donor in the original source. It should also be noted that these articles quote from the Daily Mail as their source, which, as previously mentioned, is typically considered inappropriate for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr Wang has only been referred to in a secondary sense in these articles as his foundation made a donation and he met the prince, not as someone who is involved in the cash for honours issue" doesn't appear to be true, he is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself, see The Telegraph's feature piece entitled "Prince Charles's charity mired in further controversy over donor linked to Taiwanese arms deal."[2]. This PR release [3] is about his philanthropy, not his business or company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my analysis, and please tell me if I've erred:
  1. He named him company after himself by choice
  2. He chose to be the spokes person
  3. He was not forced to stand in front of a photographer
  4. He could have made the donations quietly, without publicity, but chose not to
So my two questions are:
A - Are any of those 4 points incorrect
B - Are they hallmarks of low or high profile people? CT55555 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Using your name as a company enables the company's work to be associated with you, but is not the same as seeking publicity.
  2. Being a company spokesperson is also not the same as seeking publicity. It provides the name of someone to whom questions can be directed.
  3. Being photographed is not the same as seeking publicity. This is especially true when the subject never publicised this photo.
  4. The official plaque recording the gift thanks Pureland Foundation, not the article subject. Neither the article subject or Pureland Foundation sought any publicity for the donation.
I trust these answers also address your further questions at A and B.Tidesino (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Thank you for your comments. I don't think his actions are consistent with those of a low profile individual. After considering carefully and giving you the chance to persuade me otherwise, I !vote keep CT55555 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC) (scored out my own comment CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Tidesino: This press release isn't even about philanthropy, "Bruno Wang, an avid film buff and a fan of comic book legends, hereby invites the public to watch the movie The Avengers that is set to be released on May 4, 2012. Anyone who does so is also invited to log onto Bruno Wang's Facebook profile at https://www.facebook.com/brunowangtaiwan to share their own reviews of the film so that their thoughts can be shared with the entire Facebook community and so that people can be aware of the general reaction of what some feel will be a blockbuster."[4] including a whole promotional "About Bruno Wang" section. There are a whole bunch of these... "Bruno Wang Recaps a Memorable Weekend at the British Open, Featuring an Unforgettable Finish"[5], "Film and Anime Fan Bruno Wang to Attend London Film & Comic Con in July of 2012 at Olympia Grand Hall"[6], "Bruno Wang to Attend Comic World 34 in Hong Kong With Mrs. Wang to Enjoy Anime Exhibits and Presentations"[7], . Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tidesino: you replied above but you missed this one, would you not agree that these press releases are promoting Mr Wang personally and not his business interests? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye’s Back: This material is not about the article subject, but rather about another person (or persons) with the same name.
It is also incorrect to say Mr Wang “is clearly mentioned as involved in the reputation laundering scandal itself” - it should be noted that there is no actual wording within the Telegraph article (or any others) that supports any such claims made against him. Tidesino (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that possible? Surely they can't all be for a different "Bruno Wang" unless the other Bruno Wang also has a charity named "Pure Land Foundation" [8]. This is clearly the article subject and his charity seeking publicity for a donation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source [8] does refer to the article subject, I was referring to [4],[5],[6] and [7] which have no connection to the article subject Tidesino (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing that [8] (at least) does refer to the article subject do you now wish to re-evaluate your statement about Mr Wang not seeking publicity? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the website "Bruno Wang News"[9] run by the subject of the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as single Google News search gives as:
  1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/plastic-surgeon-funded-prince-s-therapy-centre-5xk36kgph
  2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9205395/Christine-Chiu-millions-boob-jobs-Prince-Charless-new-Wellbeing-Centre.html
  3. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bling-empires-christine-chiu-on-the-pressures-of-marrying-into-a-chinese-dynasty-zfp6hp9g8
  4. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/internasional/20220216204208-134-760179/polisi-selidiki-yayasan-pangeran-charles-terkait-sogokan-wn-saudi
  5. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/memorial-service-stephen-hawking-6w0zp3kx0

If I'm missing something, please correct me.--- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail cannot be used. This simply mentions his name in a list of attendees. This is simply a photo caption as is this. THis is why a search is not necessarily helpful in determining notability @NeverTry4Me. No judgement on CNNI piece as I cannot read it, but it doesn't appear to be substantive. Star Mississippi 14:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: kind of a moot point given that the coverage already included in the article gets us well over the GNG bar. We don't need additional sources to establish notability, we have more than enough already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not taking a position on the article @Horse Eye's Back, just responding to @NeverTry4Me's query of If I'm missing something, please correct me. because "here's a bunch of hits" isn't helpful in an AfD if they don't in fact prove notability. Star Mississippi 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi:I agree that it isn't helpful, in answering their question of "if I'm missing something" I'd note that there is a considerable amount of feature coverage of the subject outside of English (primarily in traditional Mandarin, as would be expected of the coverage of a notable figure from Taiwan) but I am not fluent and I don't trust google translate for BLP so perhaps the help of someone fluent would be helpful. Coverage in languages other than english *does* contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. I only disregarded the CNNI one as I cannot read it, not because it's not usable. The English sourcing that NT4M presented doesn't add up to anything other than confirming Wang's identity, which does not appear to be at issue. Star Mississippi 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the opening gambit of the article was that his father was involved in a scandle, notability is not inherited. The little coverage there is fails WP:GNG and is of poor quality. Fleeting mentions do not = notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: Surely you aren't saying that [10] is just a passing mention or low quality, that just wouldn't be credible given the length and depth of the coverage or the quality of the OCCRP (literally among the highest in the world). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map and before taking the "No consensus" route, I want to give this discussion another week to see if some consensus can emerge, specifically on whether BLP violations are still present and whether, without them, GNG is met, that there is still sourcing beyond passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to relisting comment: The debate seems to have become overly focused on whether the subject is low-profile, but that should not be the core argument of this debate. Being low-profile is a personal preference of Mr Wang. There is some material online about work which Mr Wang or his Foundation supports in a professional capacity, but this does not demonstrate seeking wider publicity, as this material supports the events and the charitable causes, not the donation. There is also a blog, which does refer to some productions Mr Wang has supported, but this is limited to personal reflections on their content among other subjects.
Regardless, none of this contributes to Mr Wang’s notability, which does not meet GNG. What few relevant mentions there are online are either passing, or minor theatre industry press etc. or derive from association with the frigate litigation, which various courts have found to be “scandalous and vexatious” and indeed have found the article subject to be an innocent third party. BLPCRIME states “A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.”
Until I raised this debate, there were appalling unfounded accusations in the article, wrongly connecting Mr Wang to an alleged murder which were hastily removed but should never have been added to begin with. The article has since been updated with unencyclopedic information such as company address locations and disputes with an advisory team. The addition of these minor details at this time does not satisfy GNG. All of this falls short of Wikipedia standards for BLPs. Tidesino (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT (not my first)
On low profile
You are the one who said he was "low profile" in the context of WP:BIO1E. And it was a fair point to debate. But you should now not be surprised that the accuracy of the claim you asked us to discuss...is now being discussed. I consider the WP:BLP set of rules to not be breached.
On accuracy
If earlier versions of the article were incorrect, but now fixed, then that is a good thing and we should continue to discuss the article as it stands now.
On notability
To try to get us back on the track that User:Liz was steering us towards, that therefore leaves the other main issues of WP:GNG. To satisfy that, we'd generally expect significant coverage in several sources. I think in this context, we should be rigorous about that. So are there at least WP:THREE good sources?
  1. https://www.occrp.org/en/suisse-secrets/leading-taiwan-politician-had-secret-credit-suisse-account-at-time-of-major-defense-corruption-scandal this is significant
  2. https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2021/09/21/2003764737 is borderline, but I think enough to be one of three
  3. https://www.artlini.net/charles-and-chinese-donor-wanted-in-taiwan/ is in depth, but I am not sure about the quality of the source
  4. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/19/prince-charless-charity-mired-controversy-donor-linked-taiwanese/ mentions him several times, it's more than trivial
In summary
So reflecting on the points that we've been directed to focus on, I think it's BLP compliant and I think it's a GNG pass, even if it's not a slam dunk for either. And I remain with my keep vote, and I remain open minded to being persuaded otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is including a feature length news article[11] about Mr Wang's very public court dispute with his financial advisory team unencyclopedic (note that this is feature length coverage which has nothing to do with the frigate scandal)? How is running a website called 'Bruno Wang News' to promote news about Bruno Wang not seeking wider publicity? Thank you for confirming that there are not currently any BLP issues with the page, I apologize for any errors which may have previously been present. I will also note that if they had been found innocent as you claim we'd either have some media coverage of that or the Taiwanese MOJ would have taken down their digital wanted poster but its still live[12]. Mr Wang appears to still be an active fugitive from justice. What we do have coverage of is a conviction in the Jersey islands which returned millions of Mr Wang's stolen dollars to Taiwan, did that slip your mind when listing various courts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There may be debate to be had regarding the content of the page itself (which still contains inaccuracies), but the only issue to be determined here is should it exist at all? To summarise the most important reasons why it shouldn’t:
  1. WPCRIME rules are clear that if someone is only notable in connection with a crime/trial/litigation, a separate page is not necessary.
  2. GNG have not been satisfied to indicate that Mr Wang was mentioned in a widely circulated news story where the frigate litigation aspect does not factor. The other coverage referred to is not material which has had any traction in the media, nor would it.
  3. It has been suggested that Mr Wang has a conviction in Jersey. This is not correct. There are no convictions against Mr Wang, or his family, in any jurisdiction including in Taiwan. Indeed, Mr Wang has been found to be an innocent third party by the Taiwanese Supreme Court in connection with the frigate litigation.
  4. Inaccurate claims like this can cause real harm. Major mistakes were made including wrongly accusing Mr Wang of being connected to an alleged murder and other mistakes are still present in this page. Mistakes have appeared in this debate too, I note that several articles about the wrong Bruno Wang were quoted at one point. Given this, sources here should not be accepted at face value.
In conclusion, whilst we could continue to debate content issues, this isn’t necessary because by applying normal principles, the page should not exist at all. Tidesino (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find guidance in WP:CRIME very relevant and compelling. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."
I'm changing my !vote to redirect. CT55555 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the reporting about the decision by the court in Jersey inaccurate? I remain unconvinced, WP:GNG appears to be met and "disqualify everything even tangentially related to criminal activity and then count the remaining articles" is not how GNG works. GNG is satisfied by [13][14][15][16][17][18], if you want to continue to challenge under WPCRIME you can (that is your most likely path to making your boss happy) but GNG has clearly been met. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: do you mean redirect or merge? There is available encyclopedic material relating to that person that is not incorporated into the existing article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you correctly identified that I miswrote, indeed I meant the one that keeps content, so that would be merge (sorry for ambiguity, I tend to vote keep/delete/drafity until now. I'll score out and correct on my next edit. CT55555 (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2022 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bruno_Wang