Deletion of Tony Chang

Comment: I think the responses by native speakers above answered my WP:Verification concerns. The person seem to be notable simply per , i.e. "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" ("Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") The multiple sources, such as Radio Free Asia, do qualify as RS. Yes, the page is written as if someone wanted to prove that he was oppressed to receive a refugee status ("he was also oppressed directly by the Diplomatic Missions of China in Australia" and so on). However, this is not a valid reason for deletion, but something to be fixed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is an article about me. However, myself did not participate in the writing of this article. Due to |COI, I will not vote in this discussion, but will make some comments for others' reference. Please note that the corresponding Chinese article :zh:張樹人|張樹人 was re-written in November 2016 with numerous Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|new sources by another user :zh:User:葉又嘉|葉又嘉 who '''definately confirmed''' have no connections with me. Therefore, the article was restored on Chinese Wikipedia according to :zh:Wikipedia:存廢覆核請求/存檔/2016年10-12月#張樹人|DRV. Although later on it went through to  :zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2016/11/23#張樹人|AFD vote again, but this time '''no one''' vote delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: There is no requirement for sources to be in English to establish notability and RFA is a major and significant , why is this in dispute? There here are other English language sources besides, that can be found through Google
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Actually, I just want to be '''fairly treated'''. If the article did not meet the notability criteria according to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines in English Wikipedia here (such as if really only English sources should be counted for |GNG purpose), I will be respect to the final result even if it is delete. I admit I did had some so-called “dark histories” in Chinese Wikipedia community, and also never denied about the vandalism in the April 2013 incident with my ex as I said above, and really felt sorry about that, but I was really seriously hurt at that time and it is easier for me lose control especially I had experienced of traumata as in the article and I said in |ANI. However, I still aware that is not an excuse for me in that incident, even I was not intentional to make any troubles in the Chinese Wikipedia Communities. The Chinese article (later restored after re-establishment) once deleted due to prejudice from other voters. As I stated above, what I hope is this discussion not to be affected by subjective prejudice, discriminations, or any other considerations about myself as a person like what happened in Chinese Wikipedia. As I explained, the deletion process should only be based on '''objective policies''', not the consideration about the subject in the article. As
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ANI)

Comment: With all the references which have been listed over and over in ths AFD, it is quite obvious that this subject clearly passes . The subject is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I'm not sure what he's supposed to be notable for.  Is this a case of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The subject may have technically passed the notability test, but the article is absolutely a terrible piece of |coatrack article. In the article there's not much about Tony Chang himself; it's just mainly about... the Tony Chang's political struggle against China. The "|What Wikipedia is not" policy would certainly not accept this kind of political advocacy on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCATE||WP:coatrack)