Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Wang Yue

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 snowball keep. Swarm X 18:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Wang Yue

[edit]
Death of Wang Yue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite sad, but in no way notable. Many people die in hit and run accidents every year, what makes her different? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:11 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw per Speciate's whining, but i request it be moved to a different location, it's not just about her, it's about the apathy issues in China. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:17 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you can withdraw with conditions; this is basically a request to redirect to another page that doesn't yet exist. Which, frankly, I doubt is going to happen. Quis separabit? 04:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of apathy ? Plutonium27 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: this comment was made prior to the nominator redacting an earlier comment. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, If there was a way to put this in an article about Chinese apathy or something similar (without breaching NPOV of course) then that would be good. But yes, this article is not notable, it's just another death amongst the tens of thousands that happen every day. (gonna check that statistic) Akjar13 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The death has elicited wide-ranging media coverage around the world, clearly meets WP:GNG. Pundits are citing this incident as being symptomatic of a numbness and disengagement in Chinese society. WWGB (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pundits are citing this incident as being symptomatic of a numbness and disengagement in Chinese society." -- this is aimless general speculation, nothing more, nothing less. Quis separabit? 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hot topic now, but in later years, it won't be. The child didn't do anything that spectacular to acheive article status. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:30 21 October 2011 (UTC)
As pointed out later by DanS76, this article is about the accident,her death and the consequences, not about tthe child per se. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepCrystal ball gazing such as predicting a falloff of coverage is not a legitimate tactic in AFD, since it is just the opinion of the editor. 8 days into coverage, it has not stopped. We can revisit in 6 months to see if it has the legs of the Kitty Genovese bystander apathy incident (people get stabbed all the time, ya know. What has made that incident special?). "Many people die in hit and run accidents," but their deaths do not get international coverage nor do they cause "a nationwide wave of mourning" in the worlds most populous nation, as this one did. Press coverage worldwide continues 8 days after the hit and run. "What makes her different" is that it is a particularly callous instance of bystander apathy and apparent indifference by the drivers who ran over her and drove on, resulting in the people of China questioning the "seeming lack of morality in Chinese society." Appears to satisfy the notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) so far as one can judge this soon after the event. The article does is not a memorial, nor is it a biography,so the accomplishments or lack thereof of the toddler are irrelevant. The article properly covers the incident and its impact on Chinese society. Edison (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: What happened is a tragedy but we all know that notability doesn't normally derive from being a victim. The circumstances of a death, killing or murder may be notable ("Death of..., Murder of..., etc.), but this one doesn't reach that threshold, in my humble estimation, notwithstanding a rare case of media hysteria in China.
"What makes her different is that it is a particularly callous instance of bystander apathy and apparent indifference by the drivers who ran over her and drove on, resulting in the people of China questioning the "seeming lack of morality in Chinese society ... -- the above paragraph is so POV and non-neutral it would be deleted from any article in which it was placed, except as a limited quotation.
"We can revisit in 6 months to see if it has the legs of the Kitty Genovese" -- Yes we can, so let's do so -- no need to create the article now then, by your own logic. Quis separabit? 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And no need to delete it now, either, just because we can undelete it in 6 months if the coverage continues. Are the servers half full, or half empty? Edison (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, sadly, they are all empty. If the article is notable now it will be notable in six months. Deleting an article through AFD is harder than creating one, as well you know. And in six months after everyone has forgotten about this poor little girl, except her family of course, and an AFD is made to delete the article then the same keep voters will be out in force to protect it, whereas if the article is notable in six months there will be nobody to criticize its creation. In fact I vow I will support the article if the incident is still in the public eye in 180 days. Quis separabit? 17:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying an actor who played a background character in Avatar is notable because the film went on to become the highest grossing film of all time. The person is essential a key component to the news that generated from it. Which is why i retract my delete and submit a withdraw, with my reccomendation it be renamed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:47 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is not about her, its about the accident and its consequences. Keeping these 2 distinct is important. DanS76 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good Point. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's move it to a different location, like "2011 Chinese hit and run incident" or something, cause, like stated above, it's not just about her. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:43 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That title makes it non-notable and unclear. It is Wang Yue's accident specifically that is drawing the international media's attention.Zhanzhao (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zhanzhao: We need to distinguish between legitimate notable events and sentimental desires by some editors to enshrine this tragic child by name on Wikipedia, which, harsh as it sounds, is not a memorial site. Quis separabit? 02:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most people (or cats) who die in hit and run accidents do not make the headlines all over the world or lead to calls for a fundamental reassessment of a country's culture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been here in China for months now and it isn't the Chinese media but "western news outlets [who have given] the story top billing"? Should they have? Perhaps not. But they did and Wikipedia's general philosophy has been to be a follower as opposed to a trail blazer it terms of what to cover and how. Generally our job is simply to assess the level of attention not whether it is warranted.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "western news outlets [who have given] the story ... top billing": Can someone tell me how come (and I live in New York City, which is not exactly a remote village) I learned about this on Wikipedia and have not yet seen or heard a single thing about the ugly incident so far on the news here in the Big Apple. Quis separabit? 02:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The incident was reported in an extensive article in The New York Times. Perhaps you are spending too much time on Wikipedia? WWGB (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I said "on the news" -- I watch, as I do every day, several hours of news on TV and haven't heard a word, unless I missed something at 6 am. I don't read the New York Times, which is a left-wing rag. Quis separabit? 03:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Secondary sources claim..." constitutes WP:POV WP:RS and WP:SPECULATION. Quis separabit? 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous statement. There are many reliable secondary sources that have made these claims. WP:POV is not even applicable to AFD arguments. Speciate (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, my bad. Quis separabit? 02:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many similar cases around the world, there is no reason why this deserves its own article.-- Koresdcine (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please identify the "many other cases" with an equivalent amount of worldwide coverage, and which are said to have influenced the psyche of a nation, which have no articles. Perhaps they also satisfy WP:EVENT and should have articles. A Los Angeles Times article says it is "the Chinese equivalent of the infamous 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese" and that the provincial leaders held 3 days of meetings to discuss the implications of the case. A group of lawyers are drafting a "Good Samaritan" law as a result of the case, to penalize people who fail to help in such a situation, and to indemnify those who do render aid. Edison (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scale of the coverage alone has been exceptional and makes this a notable subject for an article. I would compare it to the Tank Man article in terms of coverage, and also how it achieved significance when the subject seemed like one out of many similar incidences that undoubtly happened that day. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable incident, fueled a lot of coverage and question by the media Worldwide— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.235.109 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wang Yue herself may not be notable before, but the coverage of the accident that lead to her death, and he discourse it led to, definitely meets the criteria for notability, considering the scope and scale of the coverage. DanS76 (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "What makes her different?" the nominator asks. It doesn't matter. The scale and scope of the coverage demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a video out there of a group of chinese men kicking and punching a small Caucasian boy. it did not make headlines but this one did so as per WP:GNG, i really do not see a reason as to why it should not be kept, but it should be expanded with pictures of the child and the incident...--Stemoc (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment by Stemoc makes absolutely no sense. Quis separabit? 02:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ORLY?. If any of you have seen the vid of a group of chinese men punching and kicking a small caucausian boy who was "allegedly" caught stealing, you would know what i'm talking about. It shows people there seem to be living in some fuc*ed up world but nothing was done about it and we don't know who that child was and what happened to him afterwards, it was pretty much swept under the rug. Something similar has just happened, only this time it was to one of their own. Had international media not made a big deal out of this and shamed China, they would not have taken this big step to make sure its not repeated...--Stemoc (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the death of a child is indeed tragic, there is nothing notable about the victim. They are neither famous, infamous, or well known in some other capacity. This is simply a tragic event, but hardly worth a mention on Wikipedia. --Comwhiz2002 (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this should be kept or redirected. Paradise coyote (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why all the confusion? The article is about the event described as the Death of Wang Yue. Its not about the person. It is a notable event. It has garnered "significant media coverage" as per our guidelines.- Kiwipat (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculate, without the shocking video, this news story (even if it broke out into news) would have been a mere blip. It would simply be Child run over by car, dies. And that'll be the end of it. Yes, I've seen the video; I was shocked by it like many of you. But, in retrospect, this story does not warrant an article of its own. A good mention of it can be put into bystander effect. Or, some article talking about the culture of China. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, who knows how much of this incident will go on to affect further incidents in China, just like the incident of Kitty Genovese or even that of Mohamed Bouazizi? Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful encyclopedia that is informative - does that mean that just because these incidents are frequent doesn't mean that they are notable to be kept on Wikipedia? When the incident is notable and has caused quite some impact or reaction (do check the many Chinese forum sites, be it Baidu, Tianya or Sohu, with regards to this event), it is deserving of an article for itself, otherwise those many articles about minor fictional films, cartoons or games can also find no reason to exist. At the very least, we can keep it on hold for about 6 months (like one of us has suggested above), check for further updates or mentions before making final decisions about this discussion. NoNews! 07:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant to bystander effect. Wikipedia is not the news. Hekerui (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the news about this girl already a hit in my country and surely all over the world. The death of this little girl need to be recorded and saved because it get attention from all over the world. If you asking what the differences with other accidents? Well:
  1. Others doesn't make big news.
  2. There are also other "no different" article such as killing of a person,suicide,abduction and so on but why they have their own article?
  3. This news has change a lot on cultural and community. The way people think about China and their rules.
  4. Well,if we combine all the news source, we can get a complete Wikipedia page.
  5. Its TEACHING EVERYONE A LESSON. --Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has made Al Jazeera and NHK. Notable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Clearly as notable as anything else on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the news, but this isn't a news story, its a documentation of a Worldwide response to the tragedy amongst MANY other things, like it says on WordswithMeaning! - "It has become one of the most talked about thing on the news and on Social Media and yet its article was listed for deletion, yet Rebecca Black's 'Friday' response hasn't been flagged for lack of notability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.206.118 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Already "voted" above, but reiterating that the article is not just about the toddler, or just about the accident, but also about the exceptional media coverage, official responses and other repercussions by this incident. Admittedly, the article in its earlier versions did focus on only the death and accident, but the other components have slowly being added in by different editors and will probably continue to improve. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG with lots to spare. Anyone who is still wondering "what makes this different?" hasn't looked into the aftermath at all and should probably stay away from AfD. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know about you, but I've never seen a hit-and-run, whether it be of a toddler or a cat, make international headlines before. Meets WP:GNG, and if not keep, then Redirect.
  • Weak keep. It did spark a huge international reaction and will likely be one of the top stories of 2011, but I'm not sure how it will be viewed in a historical context. A tragedy nonetheless. --Zerbey (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Death of Wang Yue is a notable event which has garnered ample "significant media coverage" as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. For those concerned about historical importance, I believe this article qualifies for many reasons, one of which is that China is drafting a "Good Samaritan" law as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredBoudreau (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This story is covered widely here in Ireland, and is causing huge revulsion on sites like Boards.ie. It's rare that a Chinese story would make it over this far. The manner of her death is clearly worthy of an article. 109.77.220.202 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This story is about the incident, not the victim, so the issue is the notability of the incident, not the notability of the toddler who was killed. Some of those saying "delete" seem to be confused on that point. It is notable, as can be instantly seen by the references to reliable sources. 65.175.183.196 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". I think coverage in New York Times [1], Washington Post [2], CNN and multiple world wide media in multiple languages completely satisfies the requirement for notability. Plus, not to be disrepectful, Phan Thi Kim Phuc [3] is most notable for her appearance in Nick Ut's photograph. Hazel Massery [4] is most notable for her shouting at Elizabeth Eckford. They enjoy their own page in wikipedia mostly because of one famous photo. I would argue this video is no less famous than these photos, as it has been viewed tens of millions time over the globe. Plus, this page is not about a person, but an event, as pointed out by numerous people ahead of me. If this article is deleted, then the other pages should be marked for deletion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizhu2011 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Death of Wang Yue or Wang Yue incident. Meets all WP:GNG criteria. Has received extensive media coverage. Incidentally, the submitter of this AfD has exhibited callous and sickening comments here attempting to justify and poo poo away the greater ramifications of this incident. By comparing this child's death to roadkill, he has made me question the underlying intentions behind this AfD. - CompliantDrone (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I changed my nom to Withdraw yesterday, FYI. I do apologize to anyone who thought i was comparing this to roadkill. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:44 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, verified by international 3rd party reliable sources, circumstances similar to Kitty Genovese. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant media coverage, thus meets the Wikipedia guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabinho (talk • contribs)
  • Delete . It was an ordinary accident in China. There are thousands of similar accidents in the world every day. Wikipedia is not wikinews.--Coekon (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this kind of thing just happens all the time, right? I saw three of these just yesterday. It's not like there's been any real reaction to this at all, it's just ordinary. I would refer you to the comment I made above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : the media coverage in Chinese is extraordinary and not comparable to other incidents. People who say "similar accidents" happen in the world every day-- Really? Where? I do not believe that eighteen people walk by a bleeding, dying 2-year-old child on a busy urban street every day around the world, that two trucks run over the child without stopping, much less that an incident that causes nationwide soulsearching and the proposal of sweeping new laws is "an ordinary accident." This incident is going to make a big difference to Chinese people. I've been following China for many years and have never seen anything like this before. I don't see why anyone would want to delete this article when far more trivial incidents are all over Wikipedia without deletion requests. The incident has been covered in hundreds of articles in mainstream French and German media as well. Also, for the person in China who said he didn't see anything-- that's because it is embarrassing for the Chinese government; the main Chinese television station didn't mention it, but instead covered an incident in which bystanders together lifted a car off a 22-year-old girl. What is remarkable is how much reaction there was in China even before any official coverage of the incident. Evangeline (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not a first hand report on breaking news. The criteria do not apply. This article does reflect current and up-to-date information on a notable event. Relevant criteria should be WP:GNG, which it clearly meets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizhu2011 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger picture

[edit]

New section brought in because there is probably a larger phenomenon going on here, than just one child getting run over by a vehicle. Here's some other news: [5]. I know; it's Sankaku, not the best of sources. Summation: this time, it was a boy getting run over by a large truck, where the driver actually deliberately reversed the truck to ensure the child dies. Silly question, but will this child get an article too? No. There's no video associated with this incident. So, I suppose here: I propose a more generalized article on this issue. An article like this can go much farther and more in-depth than just one sensationalized incident. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Genovese was neither the only nor first case of the Bystander effext, but the incident's place as a catalyst for studies and reflection was never understated. I would hazard to say the same applies here. Note that for the American context, there are a lot of bullying/cyber-bullying cases that led to suicide which is an article by itself, yet quite a few have dedicated articles for specific cases. Notably Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince. Btw both articles started whn the cases originally got reported, before prosecution/followup. For the case you mentioned, the coverage is not on the scale of that of Wang Yue, and all coverage of the new case referenced Wang Yue, which demonstrates the place that original case holds in respect of other cases that followed /is compared with. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zhanzhao. The issue here is not that a child gets run over by a vehicle, per se. (And, thus -- following the logic of that argument -- that the two incidents should merit equal treatment on Wikipedia.) The issue is the very different levels of coverage for the two (virtually) identical events. In one case (Wang Yue), there was intense international and global coverage. In the other case, there was little-to-no coverage. Hence, one incident merits a Wikipedia article, while the other does not. The notability does not stem from the incidents having similar circumstances and characteristics (i.e., a child being hit and killed by a vehicle). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
In this truck run over boy twice story, there are huge differences. 1) After police investigation, they concluded the truck didn't back up to run over the boy twice[[6]], as asserted by the villagers. You may distrust the police investigation, but at present time, no evidence of the truck backing up has surfaced. 2) The driver didn't run. As far as I read, he stopped and after found the boy under the front wheel, he called police and stayed. This is a traffic accident. Jizhu2011 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Zhanzhao. How are these incidents similar except for the truck? In one, an accident happened, and if it's true that the driver then reversed the truck, he was a particularly evil person who tried to kill a child. In the Wang Yue incident, a large number of "normal" people walked right next to a dying toddler without stopping to save her life. It is the "large number of normal people" that is relevant and makes this case so remarkable. Only one out of 19 people stopped to help a dying child. Some of them actually stepped around her or stopped to look at her. This is in many ways like the Kitty Genovese case but even more in-your-face as it was a very small child that obviously could not help itself, and the child was in their paths. If the case turns out to be forgettable in a year, which I seriously doubt, fine, delete the article then. But this case-- the callousness, not the child's death-- is making headlines around the world and I can't see why on earth anyone interested in current events would want to delete it. There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia about manga characters and creators of 1950s television shows, for heaven's sake. But somehow an incident that is causing a huge uproar in a country of a billion people is nominated for deletion. It would certainly make me take Wikipedia less seriously if this article were deleted. Evangeline (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Shamatari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i withdrew 5 days ago. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:07 26 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Wang_Yue&oldid=1144128791"