Lin Zhijian's paper plagiarism case: Many of the sources are very low quality, and the article's level of detail seems idiosyncratic, unencyclopedic, and more than a little POV if treatment of plagiarism by other public figures in articles is anything to go by.  I feel I have little choice than to bring it to AfD, I'm not even sure what else needs to be said about the plagiarism on Lin's own article.  Remsense 诉 06:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Lin Chih-chien for all the reasons you give.   Policies and guidelines may include WP:SUSTAINED and WP:POVFORK .   As you say there's not a lot more to be said on Lin's article, although that section of his article could use a bit of editing.  Oblivy ( talk ) 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 09:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Politics ,  and Education .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as per User:Oblivy.  -- Wish for Good ( talk ) 04:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Cleanup is needed (including mispelling of Chih-chien as Zhijian), but there are arguably RS covering this incident, so it seems to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic from the subject's biography.  (Most sources are in Chinese, unfortunately, but for example Taipei Times covered this in multiple dedicated articles: [26] , [27] , [28] - note are cited, in our article which unfortunately relies solely on Chinese sources, likely due to being a translation from Chinese Wikipedia).  We have many similar articles, see Category:Plagiarism controversies .  What we need is a review of sources by someone familiar with Chinese (Taiwanese) outlets, in terms of which are reliable.  PS.  The incident is mentioned in at least one academic, English article: Liao, D. C. (2023).  " Party Turnover" on the Move?  Assessing and Forecasting the Dynamics of Taiwan's Politics after the 2022 Local Elections.  American Journal of Chinese Studies, 30(1).  (I can't link it due to EBSCO being link unfriendly and paywalled, but it comes up in Google Scholar query here .  -- Piotrus at Hanyang | reply here 04:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't really disputed that the subject passes WP:GNG , but could you articulate why the subject should have its own article and isn't best treated in a section of Lin Chih-chien per WP:PAGEDECIDE ?  Notability is not the only criterion for whether a page should exist.  Remsense 诉 07:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Page size and WP:DUE (particularly in BLP context) are all relevant considerations.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a tad troubling if the best solution is to have a very underdeveloped base BLP and a very well-developed article about an exclusively negative aspect of that BLP.  I do not think this is in keeping with the spirit of NPOV if we let the abstraction of a separation in pages result in the total content of material covering a BLP be totally lopsided like this.  See the examples at WP:SPINOFF .  Remsense 诉 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I tend to agree with @ Remsense except I don't agree it's a particularly "well-developed article", just a long one.  I think any merge would have to cut it down quite a bit.   Lin's article is relatively short at about 13K and this one is about 50K.  Even if all of the text was ported over (something I'd 100% oppose for WP:DUE reasons) it still wouldn't be beyond page size guidelines.  Note that the plagiarism article is entirely about Lin, not about some larger issue of which this incident was emblematic.  There's a sentence fragment about strengthened anti-plagiarism measures at the school, and a weak attempt to blame the DPP's overall showing on him.  The latter is only supported by a source that regurgitates a press conference in which he apologized.  Nothing is gained by separating the two.  Oblivy ( talk ) 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge due to NPOV concerns and because the article doesn't cover anything that could not be discussed in the main article on the subject.  Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 14:30, 20 May 2024 (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: merge