Fan Xiaoqin: WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."  BLP also says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."  Please see further discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fan_Xiaoqin Fences & Windows 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Disability , Entertainment ,  and China .  Fences & Windows 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I've not verified the sources presented, but agree with the rationale above.  I'm not ! voting until I can have a better look at the article think through this.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 21:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I was going to write this up after an exam -- I see I got sniped.  There is an excruciatingly complex situation here.  "Article about a minor" is hard.  "Article about a cognitively disabled subject" is hard.  "Article where most of the sources are in a language extremely unlike English" is hard.  We have all three here.  Explaining the going-ons here in full requires some jargon, and it's jargon originally written in Chinese, if that wasn't hard enough.  Per The Paper , Fan has been diagnosed with 智力残疾二级 .  智力残疾 is intellectual disability -- see this factsheet , written for Chinese speakers living in Australia, for a Rosetta Stone here.  智力残疾二级 is, specifically, severe intellectual disability.  See this health-services page from Guangming, Shenzhen -- even if your Chinese is weak, Chinese numerals are fairly simple, and the IQs are given in Arabic numerals, so you can see that 智力残疾二级 corresponds to an IQ from 20 to 34, which is the same thing called severe ID in English.  The term "intellectual disability" is not recognized by all readers (I often hear people assume it's roughly synonymous with "developmental disability" and includes e.g. autism), so this needs a little more context again.  Here is an open-access clinical primer on ID.  To quote the definition of severe ID: The measured IQ of persons with severe ID falls between 20–25 and 35–40.  In addition to severe deficit in intellectual functioning, persons with severe ID may also have motor impairments and other associated conditions that further limit intellectual and adaptive functioning.  Persons with severe ID function at mental age between 3 and 5 years as adults.  Persons with severe ID need extensive, regular, consistent, and lifetime support in daily living activities, and are care dependent.  Persons with severe ID have significantly limited language and communication ability.  They have significant limitations in spoken language; communication may be limited to use of single words or phrases.  Their communication ability may be improved with use of augmentative communication methods.  They often use gestures to communicate basic needs.  Persons with severe ID have significant limitations in understanding concepts of numbers, quantity, time, management of money and problem solving.  The social interactions and relationships for persons with severe ID are largely limited to immediate family members and care takers.  A person with severe ID requires intensive support in all activities of daily living including self-care and personal hygiene.  They are not able to make sound judgments or decisions that may affect the wellbeing of self or others and require constant supervision.  Assuming The Paper is correctly reporting on his diagnosis, we're talking about an extreme level of impairment.  I can't think of any other article where I've had to tease out a situation this complex.  This is a significantly disabled 15-year-old who was transiently famous as a child in a non-English-speaking country because his father thought it was the only way to get the family out of poverty .  There is a borderline case for notability, but it's trumped by the extreme complexity and sensitivity of the situation.  From an ethical point of view, I can only land at delete here -- I think BLP trumps GNG on this one.  Vaticidal prophet 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I understand this is a delicate situation.  But I do not see how this Wikipedia article does him harm.  I sourced my information from publicly available, high traffic sources.  His family cooperated with interviews, indicating they are fine with the public attention.  If anything, I believe deleting this article is harmful (though I believe this nom is good-faith).  We did not remove the article on George Floyd because he didn't want to be shot.  If we *did* remove it, it arguably would have allowed the incident to be swept under the rug and the cop to avoid public responsibility after his conviction.  We would be harming the victim.  Similarly, here, we just need to make it abundantly clear that he did not *choose* to become famous.  He was exploited by a greedy businessman.  I am aware that he is subject to the BLP policy, and is not become famous out of his own volition.  But that did not stop us from publishing articles on people like Jacob Blake , Abby Zwerner , Terri Schiavo or Rodney King while they are/were still alive.  Controversy should be a sign to tread lightly, but not to sweep things under the rug.  When we see something difficult (such as Donald Trump or even Star Trek Into Darkness ), we should not shy away, but instead work together to improve the article.  We are rightfully concerned about the consequences of him having a page.  But what about the consequences of information about him being censored?  I urge everyone to weigh both cost and benefit.  Bremps ... 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Bremps , first, administrators delete dozens (hundreds?) of articles and pages daily because they are not consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  This is not censorship unless you consider a "Delete" closure for every AFD, a PROD deletion or CSD speedy deletion to be censorship.  Secondly, if we do consider the suggestion you end your comment with, what is the benefit for Wikipedia to have this article?  The costs are clear but what is to be gained?  L iz Read!  Talk!  00:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the comment.  I don't mean "censorship" as in some sort of grand conspiracy by some cabal, but because I believe this subject is notable and is being removed because having an article on him doesn't "feel" right.  I'm not implying any malice here.  The benefit is the same as any other Wikipedia article: informing the reader.  Years from now, someone could be doing research on Fan and not be able to access sources that have become lost over time.  If we make it clear that Fan himself had no agency in making himself become famous, then we'll have neutralized any potential harm this page has.  Bremps ... 00:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I can see both sides of the argument, but we should perhaps incorporate more of the discussion points above into the article (child appears to have been "used" by his parents to help them get out of poverty).  There's a story here, so long as we're careful about how it's told, I think it's ok.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I can see some notability but overall the article makes me too uncomfortable.  It talks about learning difficulties for the subject of the article plus details of the health, finances and education of various family members who are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE S. And given the difficulties described by Vaticidalprophet above, I don't see that we can get this article into a state where it is consistent with WP:AVOIDVICTIM .  Mgp28 ( talk ) 12:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I think there are several reasons to delete this article, including because the subject is a sensationalized child, so there are initial WP:BLP policy issues and a need for high-quality sourcing.  There also seems to be a focus on scandal mongering , which is contrary to WP:NOT policy, particularly for articles about living people, which are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy .  As to WP:AVOIDVICTIM , this section also seems to support deletion, and editing does not seem likely to alter the facts based on available sources; for example, while the article currently suggests "Fan remains a celebrity in Yanhui; tourists pay hundreds of yuan to film videos with him", the 2021 source (interviewed by Vice) does not describe him as a "celebrity" and instead describes what sounds like villagers mistreating a child.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 01:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I agree with the arguments made by Vaticidalprophet and Beccaynr.  There is an argument to be made for notability, but the BLP issues caused by the sensitive nature of the subject are too big IMO.  ULPS ( talk • contribs ) 16:58, 24 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete