609:, he was awarded a heavy-duty award that is coveted, by the folk in his industry. It was and is, absolutely notable. Even without passing mentions, Zuckerberg and Gates have been present in the western culture for so long now, in any situation, they would be notable. It don't think it is a double standard and its disingenuous for you to suggest it. If you man didn't spend so much money on PR, there might be some secondary information showing up, that could be used as a source. It it is all PR and that is the nature of business now. There was even a recent BBC Radio 4 discussion about PR and how it is now hard for decision makers/suppliers/interested parties to actually make contact with decision makers inside a company, because their is a layer of PR that keeps them out. Everything goes through that lens of PR and they generate so much branding muck that impossible for real people to interact. It is almost like a shield. It hard to find real info. It was a very curious conversation and also enlightening.
1708:: 1) Once notability is established, it is quite fine to use also other sources to reference specific items in the article where there is a need, so your frustration that similar sources to some in your long list are being used in other articles, is misplaced. To move ahead, you (or someone else) needs to identify which of the long list are the 2-3 minimum that are reliable, independent, and in-depth. 2) Your personal attacks on the nominator aren't helping. 3) Given your involvement and passion here, it is fair to ask: do you have any conflict of interest on this article, whether paid or not (e.g. personal friendship or professional link}? This is not an accusation, merely a reasonable concern given the circumstances.
2648:. I don't know enough about Chinese press dynamics to be 100% confident exactly how independent they are, but except when public figures do something truly controversial, I do think we'd be surprised how much lazy paraphrasing of information initially furnished by subjects makes its way unchallenged into independent, so-called "reliable" sources anyway, so I'm prepared to potentially cut a bit of slack here, especially given legitimate concerns about cultural bias. These seems good enough. Based on this individual's business accomplishments, it does seem we should try have an article about him if we can, and these 3 sources (and potentially others in the whole excessive range of sources identified) mean we can.
1700:. We need a couple of reliable, independent sources with in-depth coverage of the article subject (as opposed to the companies he has been involved in, with passing mention of him as an individual). The (main?) contributor has provided lots of sources, in the article and here, but the ones I've spot checked (and can read, due to language issues) all seem to fail at least one of these requirements. I am sensitive to the fact that cultural bias could get in the way here, so I am happy to change my mind, but only if someone provides 2-3 such sources, and if they are in another language, someone uninvolved verifies they are reliable, independent, and indepth.
60:, there is pretty clear consensus to redirect. I will also be protecting the article, users interested in recreating it (if referencing quality increases) can go through AFC. The very fact that there are 109 external links and the deletion discussion is now 5x longer than the article indicates that something is up. While Marvin Twen has asked an administrator to review all sources presented, and I have, at the end of the day the closer is assessing consensus, not their own opinion, and consensus here is to redirect.
1842:. Despite copious refbombing, there is no evidence of notability independent of the parent article and notability is not inherited. None of the references that are available in the article or in searches satisfy the three prongs of significance, independence, and reliability. What sources are available that are significant are about the company, not its CEO, and the ones which are about him are neither independent nor reliable.
501:: changing to Strong Keep. I found and added so many more sources of significant coverage, and there is still so much more. These are the same kinds of sources used on Zuckerberg, Gates, and other reputable CEOs. They come from Bloomberg News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, US Security Exchange Commission, and much more. This is more than enough ample evidence to support keeping this article.
1492:
past continues to haunt you, and you insist on finding every excuse to prolong this debate, then that is counterproductive to the spirit of wikipedia to make it as encyclopedic as possible. Ultimately, we are all here to build an encyclopedia, so even I must admit that I empathize with your frustration when one of your articles was deleted. Hopefully, the same mistake is not repeated.
1747:. I am just stating facts, and I am just putting this here in response to Martinp's specific question as many of the responses here are heavily one-sided seeing only Scope creep's pov, which is unfair. Anyways, I'd rather not discuss these things further, but rather discuss the sources and how they further demonstrate the notability of the article. Thank you.
2678:. This article's author doesn't appear to be a staff reporter, nor can I find any mention of them writing for reliable media outlets. I also can't find any reports of Jiemian winning any journalism awards, which casts doubt on their reputatation. Much of their content appears blatantly promotional, like
2650:
I also note that though Marven Twen has made few contributions outside this subject area, in response to my (and others') requests above, they have asserted they are not paid and do not have a COI. While I was initially suspicious given the nature of their involvement and interaction style, I am also
1491:
So my question to you is: do you want to become the same kind of person who deleted
Ferdinand Feichtner, an article you really valued and wanted kept, or do you want to move on from that past, admit the notability of the subject, and keep this article. Scope Creep, we can help each other. But if that
1558:
The majority of these are junk, capital and share announcements, duplicates of the same articles, passing mentions, press-releases, company and paid profiles, and a whole load of non-RS scrap for an editor who is likely a paid editor and part of the team that does the PR, and who managed to move the
462:
These sources are not 'junk' or 'trash'. If the sources are reliable and noteworthy enough to be used on
Zuckerberg or Gates' pages, then they are reliable enough to be used on this article as well. The article subject is also a billionaire and the CEO of a significant internet company and has clear
1499:
I do not think either you or I want to waste anymore time on this debate. This CEO has more than enough notable evidence to merit keeping this article. All I am asking is that you please close this AfD case and keep the article. If you do, it would show how much you have grown and moved on from the
2536:
Giant Dwarfs, these personal attacks and false accusations against me are not relevant to the Afd. But since you do ask here, I feel somewhat obligated to explain to others: that was just a suggestion based on Giant Dwarf's past editing experience. He only created his account recently and made his
1456:
At first, I did not understand where your deep hatred towards this article came from, hatred apparent since you used the words 'junk' and 'trash' in our conversation. But looking at your past history, it seems that you once had an incident with AFD involving an article you wanted to keep so badly.
2812:
If anything, I was hoping an established admin preferably familiar with the
Chinese language could make an objective assessment of these sources. Many people here already admit that they cannot read Japanese or Chinese fluently, and moreover Google Translate gives inadequate translations. That is
2401:
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Chen Rui, 41...his 24.2 percent stake now worth $ 1 billion...Chen was born in 1978...Chen studied communication engineering at Chengdu University of Information Technology, and joined ...Kingsoft Corp. after graduating in 2001. Nine years later, he co-founded
2156:
Well, xinhuanet doesn't have the level of reliability that I would look for in a source that was being used to establish notability. I'm not familiar enough with the sina.com website to comment on its reliability, and I'm relying on machine translation which probably isn't the best for getting to
2820:
I am pretty sure at least one of the sources satisfies all three: independence, sigcov, and reliability. If even then, somebody tries to wantonly dismiss all of these nearing 50+ references for billionaire CEO Chen Rui who has lots of coverage in multiple languages, then all one can conclude--as
1734:
Martinp, firstly, I want to thank you for trying to understand both points of view. Second, to answer your other question, Scope creep has already repeatedly falsely accused me of this (COI and Paid), and I have repeatedly said no. I have nothing to do with the subject, and I am not paid. Yet he
1478:
This past and your current crusade to delete almost every new article on wikipedia essentially invalidate this Afd nomination. It seems that you really wanted to keep
Ferdinand Feichtner in Afd, but because it was deleted, you went on a revenge spree to delete every other new article, to pick on
1740:
So while Scope creep's point of view is understood, can people understand my point of view--how he is repeatedly personally attacking me? Moreover, on this AfD page, I have asked him repeatedly to tone down his language, especially the use of second person 'you' along with words like 'junk' and
792:
As for the double standards, it works like this: you say source A is unreliable for this article, however source A is still being used on another notable CEO's article like
Zuckerberg or Gates. If one says a source is unreliable when it is used on this article, but reliable when used on another
2880:
Since the author has mentioned me in one of their various summaries/closing statements, I'll just note that my position has not changed. The sources are weak, and spammy, and while some of them are better than others I'm not persuaded that GNG is met. My position remains that this should be
2738:
Never reply to a comment right after you see it. Wait a bit, clear your thoughts, and make sure they are saying what you think they are saying. Often, someone else will reply back and correct an error or offer some insight that is new to you. Give other editors enough time to agree with
1716:: Your concern for keeping promotion off wikipedia is appreciated, as well as your feeling of being personally attacked here. However, your language isn't helping either; I'd suggest in the future making the same points you are making without using loaded terms like "junk" or "PR".
682:(but maybe salt against recreation)]; he may become sufficiently notable in the future to warrant an article on the English Knowledge. That time is not now. This is a case of CEO does what a CEO does with a concomitant layer of promotionalism surrounding him. This is a
1945:, other language sources can be used, especially since they supplement the already existing English sources. Chen Rui has articles in Japanese and Chinese already as well. Moreover, he is the leader and CEO of multiple companies. All this put together clearly pass
2853:: With the 7 day deadline finally approaching, I think most of us here would agree that there has been extensive debate from multiple parties expressing sundry views. If I may politely ask, even if this debate is not closed as Keep, can it at least be closed as
2864:
It has been a long week. If the debate is closed as 'No
Consensus' or Keep and the article stays as is, I myself will take a wiki vacation and not edit anything for a week, perhaps even a month or longer. Thank you very much for your consideration on this.
463:
coverage in various languages, with
Knowledge articles existing in these languages as well. The purpose is not to go on a crusade to destroy every single article on the site, but to expand and make Knowledge more encyclopedic. Thanks for your understanding.
2881:
redirected to the company he is head of, and that the redirect be protected to prevent recreation. Should better sourcing become available in future, a new article can be written and submitted to AfC, and the protection lifted upon its acceptance. Cheers
2727:
I am sensitive to the fact that cultural bias could get in the way here, so I am happy to change my mind, but only if someone provides 2-3 such sources, and if they are in another language, someone uninvolved verifies they are reliable, independent, and
896:, if you can read Japanese (and not just the Google translated version which often distorts the original meaning), then this is also independent and reliable, not PR at all. Moreover it is from a notable French source Agence France-Presse.
2696:
The Shine.cn source was written by Chen Rui himself for their series of "40 People, 40 Stories, 40 Years" feel-good puff pieces. There's a very small biographical section at the top, but that's pretty typical for promotional content like
2860:
It is in none of our interests to prolong this debate needlessly as that would only invite further trouble. We all want to get along with our lives and move on, and we do not want our lives to be forestalled by a single dramatic AfD.
518:
And I can continue to expand more if needed. Because of the sheer amount of double standards and prejudice apparent in this afd nomination, I strongly urge that this afd nomination be withdrawn and closed and the article kept. Thanks.
2832:
Anyways, these systemic biases are things I unfortunately cannot change. The only thing I am able to do is continue showing more evidence of notability and sigcov for Rui. Thanks. I hope somebody understands and keeps this article.
818:
Yes, I understand there is so much commotion in the world because of the COVID pandemic. However, as fellow wiki editors, I am sure you agree that we have higher standards. The pandemic does not give us an excuse to bully on Asian
788:
I think we are making progress, and I would very much like to end on a consensus to keep, but first we would have a much more productive conversation if you avoid using personally-charged phrases like 'trash', 'junk', 'you man'.
1741:'trash' (which I thank you Martinp for realizing). From the beginning, I have tried hard to use third person and avoid 2nd person. However, he has repeatedly made edits to many parts of my own response that are relevant to Afd
2816:
But I understand that users--nevermind admins--have no obligation to comment. I respect that. I am just saying if one comments, can we please analyze each in detail as that might be more beneficial to the conversation.
825:
Even if that BBC radio message you mentioned is true, your specific usage of PR or press release is so broad and vague that almost every source seems to qualify as PR, which is ridiculous. All I can say is 'lighten up'
1587:: Scope Creep, you are making repeated false accusations against me, and you are getting emotional. Many of the sources are actually reliable, not 'junk' as you often like to say. See my responses above for reference.
1495:
Initially there were 3 sources on this article, so I gave you the benefit of doubt and added 20+ more sources and vastly expanded the content. You said you do not want to review any more sources, and I can understand.
2669:
Jiemian.com is a relatively new news/social media site with an incredibly low bar for publishing content. They do have staff reporters, but those articles have a "reporter" by-line and mention the author's role, like
218:
2560:
I see no point in continuing this ridiculous side-conversation on this page. I will let others judge based on these above facts. I am only answering once because Giant Dwarfs brought it up in an attempt to
822:
He already has wikipedia articles in
Japanese and Chinese. The coverage in these languages alone already merits making an article on him, and even then, he has much coverage in English language media.
417:: Scope Creep, please avoid getting emotional as that can interfere with one's judgement. Note that there is a serious issue of double standards in this nomination and evaluation of sources. Look at
1636:
does not completely preclude primary or self-published sources, especially since there are only 1 or 2 above, out of 20+ sources, and moreover they are used sparingly, not for the whole article.
2540:, around the same time as the ANI report was submitted by User:Scope creep. Moreover Giant-Dwarfs has made similar edits to the ANI and the Chen Rui Afd supporting Scope creep, indicating spa.
2633:. Above (now struck) I wrote I was tending to delete. However, looking through both the refbombing and some of the unfortunate discourse on this page, the following 3 sources raised above by
2809:
And before a user tries to say they are ‘all this or all that’, could we try to analyze each one at a time rather than assign one cover term to everything (which is hardly ever the case).
833:
Moreover, he has significant coverage from reputable, independent, non-PR sources such as
Bloomberg News, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, US Security Exchange Commission, etc. Here are some:
2557:. Also, these users tend to make many spelling and grammatical mistakes, which is unacceptable by wiki standards. It is likely Giant-Dwarfs is a sock of somebody, even if not Scope creep.
2685:
The Sina source is about the company. Chen Rui is quoted several times but there is very little biographical information about him, essentially mentioning 2 or 3 places that he's worked.
2231:
The first one might be usable; the second one has someone else's byline, but it is almost entirely written by the subject in the first person, so does not help establish notability.
839:, significant coverage from Bloomberg, this is no PR, it is independent. Moreover Bloomberg is also used on Gates and Zuckerberg and many other places, so it is reliable coverage.
275:
2767:, No consensus, jury is still out. All I will say is that Bloomberg News is RS and that more than half the article is about Chen. I will let these facts speak for themselves.
1250:
844:
171:
2781:
Thus, based on Martinp’s advice, we have at least 1 RS (possibly 2 or more based on other people's responses), and we need at least one more to establish notability.
2027:
Xinhua’s use should be attributed. However, this is not a contentious issue regarding China, and the in-depth reliable coverage on the subject establishes notability.
1068:
869:
1824:
certainly doesn’t land credibility to any of your claims. Do keep that in mind for future sake. The ref bombing also didn’t help, isn’t helping & will not help.
450:
212:
2035:
So these are three such independent reliable sources, but I also want to bring up two sources that colleague Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth.
2452:
Marven Twen, can I please ask, have you ever contributed in any way at all to any other page, discussion or talk page anywhere on Wiki apart from this one page?
295:
1864:
and protect per SN - the sourcing just isn't there to support notability, I couldn't find any that isn't either affiliated, unreliable or passing mentions.
2111:
First, Xinhua is not even industry, it is state-run, and its use is acceptable so long as attributed and not involving contentious political topics as per
118:
326:
and other CEOs. If the sources are reliable and significant enough to be used for these people, then they are reliable enough to be used for this article.
2157:
tone across, but I confess that they do look pretty puffy to me. I'll watch this discussion and see what others think, but I'm not persuaded at present.
103:
1536:
I'll review these tomorrow. If they are not all junk. It is a lot and that amount definitely counts, but it is the quality more so than anything else.
777:
Note this response will be lengthy so it is broken up into parts, but give it some time, and please read through to the end. This is important. Thanks.
2485:
1484:
If your hatred towards this article subject Chen Rui stems from a desire for revenge, then that is extremely unhealthy and forbidden on wikipedia per
1339:
1158:
719:
694:
2336:, there is no requirement for !voters to analyze every one of your refbombed citations but since I did read through that article, I'll comment. The
1429:
2596:
1139:
1919:
1317:
639:. When you need 8 refs for the opening sentence just to verify he's an internet entrepreneur and CEO, that indicates a potential issue with
2836:
At this point, it is perhaps best for an admin to take leadership and make an authoritative objective assessment of the sources. Thanks.
1473:
1357:
2765:
2364:
2290:
976:
837:
178:
2441:
2388:
2317:
2275:
2219:
2145:
2085:
1975:
1769:
1675:
1609:
1522:
1024:
1006:
586:
541:
485:
348:
457:
There are many examples of such sources, not just on the pages for Gates or Zuckerberg, but on many other CEO's wiki pages as well.
2445:
2392:
2321:
2279:
2223:
2149:
2089:
1979:
1773:
1679:
1630:
does not preclude financial statements, especially when those news sources give biographical info outside capital and share info.
1613:
1526:
1028:
590:
545:
489:
352:
2411:
2355:
1849:
1462:
There was an article called Ferdinand Feichtner you wanted to keep so much that you started hurling personal attacks at others
815:
He is a billionaire, and there are only a handful of billionaires in the world, nevermind in Asia. This also makes him notable.
98:
91:
17:
1650:
Given this there is a plethora of RS to go off, besides those that Scope creep mentioned. This article merits a strong keep.
2651:
willing to accept their assurances, and note that personal enthusiasm can be a powerful force for writing Knowledge articles!
1886:
Sorry he is not notable at all. Hes rich, thats it as far as I can see. Really does look like just a paid for Wiki page to me
67:
1480:
1466:
1235:
1991:
sources which you believe are the best, and most clearly demonstrate the subject's notability according to our guidelines?
2754:
I gave some time for others to put some thoughts. All I want to do is summarize the current state of some of the sources.
2492:
1500:
past, and you will be even more respected not just by me, but also by the wiki community as a whole. Thank you very much.
793:
article, that is double standards. If it is reliable enough to be used there, then it is reliable enough to be used here.
726:
701:
2829:
inherent in the Knowledge Afd process, exacerbated by all the anti-Asian media involving the global COVID-19 pandemic.
2510:
immediately against me for the simple reason I did not agree with you do not show your case or manner in the best light
1377:
945:
318:, there is significant coverage from reliable news sources. Refs are not 'PR'. Also compare with the references used on
144:
139:
1471:
1057:
primary and self-published sources are acceptable, especially since this is not used exclusively and it reports facts.
233:
2591:. I looked at all 24 citations, relying on Google Translate for the Chinese ones. Only 2 are anything like in-depth -
915:, there is nothing wrong with financial announcements, especially since these articles cover more biographical detail.
148:
112:
108:
200:
1185:
It is a paid for profile page. It is a very-low quality references and generally would not be considered for a BLP.
2775:
2404:
That this tiny amount of information is spread over about half of the column inches does not change my assessment.
2030:
1932:
2772:
2644:
2119:
do not forbid these sources, especially since they give reliable significant coverage. If allowed, may I ask what
2018:
1917:
1458:
2813:
fine, but it is ridiculous to say that a source is unreliable just because it was written in a foreign language.
763:
131:
40:
2508:
1324:
2700:
Personally, I don't think these sources meet our requirements for coverage, especially for living persons.
1392:, there is nothing wrong with an IPO listing document. Moreover this is from the US SEC so this is notable.
961:, there is nothing wrong with an IPO listing document. Moreover this is from the US SEC so this is notable.
2890:
2240:
2166:
2000:
1873:
194:
2870:
2841:
2620:
2570:
2549:
2437:
2424:
2384:
2371:
2313:
2300:
2293:
2271:
2258:
2215:
2202:
2141:
2128:
2115:
2112:
2081:
2068:
2025:
1971:
1958:
1765:
1752:
1671:
1658:
1640:
1605:
1592:
1518:
1505:
1220:
1189:
1177:
1128:
1081:
1020:
1002:
989:
759:
582:
569:
537:
524:
511:
481:
468:
344:
331:
36:
2725:
I am going to quote what User:Martinp said as it is quite insightful and relevant to our conversation.
1928:
1791:, only passing mentions and coverage of bilibili. Even if the article is kept, this is still a case of
2477:
56:. After reviewing a remarkably long discussion, which has spilled out and seen a remarkable amount of
2600:
2562:
2056:, Chen Rui won the "Business Model Innovator of the Year” (well-known within China), so according to
994:
940:, even if there is some interview, a lot of other information is secondary, independent, and reliable
871:, this is significant coverage, regardless of whether it is a contributor or not, that is irrelevant.
687:
663:
190:
2295:. It is already in the article, but I raise it here since it has not been specifically commented on.
2895:
2874:
2845:
2709:
2661:
2624:
2574:
2520:
2500:
2462:
2428:
2414:
2408:
2375:
2358:
2352:
2304:
2262:
2245:
2206:
2171:
2132:
2106:
2072:
2005:
1962:
1896:
1878:
1852:
1846:
1830:
1804:
1756:
1725:
1662:
1596:
1577:
1546:
1509:
1010:
734:
709:
670:
619:
573:
528:
472:
408:
335:
307:
303:
287:
283:
267:
226:
73:
2792:
2344:
sentence is about Chen. It fails to establish notability by any reasonable standard. Please read
1913:
1058:
2733:
2705:
2345:
2102:
1926:
1800:
1792:
796:
As for notability I gave numerous sources and pieces of evidence for this in the above response.
57:
1745:
1567:
article, because Zuckerberg/Gates has a article. There is 2 references that are full features.
428:
is a passing mention not specific to Zuckerberg yet it is still used as a source on his article.
367:
Management profile. Self-published source. Non-RS. Not independent, not secondary, not in-depth.
240:
1922:
1200:
2882:
2744:
2680:
translating this article by Margaret Atwood to promote a Chinese translation of The Testaments
2657:
2513:
2471:
2455:
2232:
2158:
2120:
2022:
1992:
1915:
1889:
1865:
1826:
1721:
1485:
969:
Even then, I can add many more sources to show this person is obviously notable and satisfies
632:
87:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
758:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2866:
2837:
2636:
2616:
2566:
2555:
2433:
2420:
2380:
2367:
2331:
2309:
2296:
2267:
2254:
2211:
2198:
2137:
2124:
2077:
2064:
2057:
1967:
1954:
1946:
1817:
1813:
1761:
1748:
1711:
1703:
1667:
1654:
1643:
1601:
1588:
1570:
1539:
1514:
1501:
1349:
1263:
1223:
1084:
1016:
998:
882:
783:
612:
600:
578:
565:
533:
520:
477:
464:
401:
340:
327:
260:
254:
2788:
2538:
1821:
1041:
2826:
2748:
2253:, but it also contains some independent secondary coverage, and the info appears reliable.
1988:
1438:
1410:
1368:
There are multiple mentions to the subject within the article. This is extensive coverage.
1105:
679:
656:
418:
323:
2804:
1911:
2822:
2608:
2481:
2405:
2349:
1950:
1843:
801:
553:
299:
279:
2784:
Here are 3-5 more. I could have put much more, but I deliberately limited the number.
2760:, Scope Creep said this is RS and in-depth. Girth Summit also said this may be usable.
206:
2701:
2690:
2686:
2612:
2098:
1934:
1796:
1633:
1627:
1560:
1445:
1417:
1389:
1167:
1148:
1054:
970:
958:
912:
683:
640:
250:
135:
61:
2366:, there are clearly multiple sentences and at least 8 paragraphs that mention Chen.
1115:
2653:
2604:
1717:
606:
507:
2181:
Have you read the two sources Scope creep himself said were reliable and in depth
165:
2251:
2117:
1942:
1147:
This is about the company. No mention of the founder and its not suitable for a
2758:
2679:
2675:
2671:
2642:
2188:
2041:
1282:
931:
2646:
2592:
2193:
2046:
1297:
1166:
That is announcement in the form of a press-release. It is not suitable for a
938:
439:
319:
2732:
Also, I am sensitive to User:Eggishorn’s advice, so I will quote part of the
506:
Moreover there are much more quality sources similar to those on the article
2796:
2054:
2052:
1939:
1930:
1924:
1275:
924:
2599:- which are based on interviews and are therefore not independent. This is
2565:
on me. But the ANI is a more appropriate place for this off-topic tangent.
1409:
Another financial announcement and is unsuitable for a BLP. It would fails
1207:
1096:
894:
637:
to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible
2419:
That amount is not 'tiny' but I will let others make their own judgement.
2693:
require significant coverage of the subject and I don't think this is it.
2584:
2484:
with a bigger conflict of interest than Van Gogh with sunflower futures.
1861:
1839:
926:, same note as above except from reliable Chinese language source Tencent
809:
805:
652:
561:
557:
127:
79:
53:
1908:
1401:
1312:
899:
2800:
2721:
Summary of some points and remaining questions of this Afd conversation
2340:
article is one of the few that is in a RS. Unfortunately, only all of
1559:
article from draft, three times. The article is now junk and should be
1463:
452:: these are passing mentions, but they are still used on the article.
1653:
Also Scope creep, please stop editing and obfuscating my responses.
846:, Forbes is also used on Gates and Zuckerberg and many other places
2250:
Yes, true primary sources are to be used in caution for an article
853:
847:
829:
There are numerous sources specific to the subject that is not PR.
552:
He has also led numerous significant internet companies including
431:
426:
1448:, there is nothing wrong with an announcement of raised capital.
1332:
Capitals and share transactions. Not suitable for a BLP article.
1262:
This is sigcov from staff writer Russell Flannery. According to
901:, similar note as above from another independent Japanese source
394:
Interview style article. Primary non-independent. Looks like PR.
2548:
on 197.89.19.112's signature indicate that he is an ip sock of
1219:
Forbes is used on Zuckerberg and Gates. Moreover, according to
1080:
Forbes is used on Zuckerberg and Gates. Moreover, according to
754:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
800:
He is the leader, even CEO, of multiple significant companies
1479:
others to give yourself a sense of satisfaction and justice.
693:
Likewise, he fails the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO.
1563:'d. It completely ignores Knowledge policies, as a kind of
447:
379:
Bloomberg story. Passing mention. More about the company.
2641:
are significant enough to move me into the keep column:
605:
It is probably best to concentrate on this article. For
2553:
2546:
2543:
2541:
2182:
2036:
1742:
1738:
1736:
1468:
1420:, there is nothing wrong with a financial announcement.
161:
157:
153:
225:
2480:
to either the Chen Rui or Billibili pages, this is a
2123:
thinks since he asked the question first. Thank you.
1243:
Company profile page. Not really applicable to a BLP.
1437:
This is an announcement of capital raised. It fails
2114:. Second, 'puff pieces' is a weasel phrase. Third,
2063:Thank you for your time and consideration on this.
276:
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions
2060:, this could further help establish reputability.
1646:, Forbes, Bloomberg, Reuters are reliable sources.
1488:, nevermind you are targeting the wrong person.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2552:which is currently blocked for personal attacks
2292:from Bloomberg News, secondary and reliable per
2097:These all look like industry puff pieces to me.
1470:. Moreover you used an IP sock to evade the ban
766:). No further edits should be made to this page.
691:very firm about the use of high-quality sources.
294:Note: This discussion has been included in the
274:Note: This discussion has been included in the
2851:Message to the admin who closes this discussion
1385:Share listing announcement. Completely non-RS.
2751:, I will try to give a few sources at a time.
1365:That is called passing mention. Not in-depth.
1787:. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the
239:
8:
2399:The sum total material actually about Chen:
2348:before posting any other supposed sources.
119:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
2184:? I will repeat them here for convenience.
398:I'm not doing anymore, they are all junk.
373:IPO listing information for company. Non-RS
2736:as I think it is important for all of us.
1188:No evidence that it is paid for. Also per
1127:No evidence that it is paid for. Also per
992:
741:The following discussion has been closed.
714:
391:WSJ. Company profile. Not specific to BLP.
296:list of China-related deletion discussions
293:
273:
1953:, meriting a strong keep of this article.
2821:Martin hinted--is that there is serious
1735:continues to falsely accuse me of such.
991:, Bloomberg News is a reliable source.
2597:Chen talked to me about his experiences
1987:This is another refbomb. Which are the
1077:For the second time. Forbes is NON-RS.
933:, same note as above except from Jieman
376:Bloomberg profile. Paid profile. Non-RS
2737:
2726:
2400:
1812:— Yup! refs are PR junk. Furthermore @
690:
2666:I'm not so sure. Breaking these down:
2507:Can I also say attacks such as this
7:
954:IPO listing document. Non-notable.
2537:first edit yesterday on August 28
510:, which survived afd and was kept
24:
1305:This is RS and somewhat in-depth.
1465:and you were even banned for it
104:Introduction to deletion process
2545:Also Giant-Dwarfs' recent edit
1820:with nonsensical comments like
1695:, but willing to change my mind
1344:Non-RS. Not a reliable source.
1216:Non-RS. Not a reliable source.
631:- looks like someone dropped a
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1352:, Forbes is a reliable source.
1226:, Forbes is a reliable source.
1087:, Forbes is a reliable source.
947:, reliable source from USA SEC
885:, Forbes is a reliable source.
1:
1441:and is unsuitable for a BLP.
1413:if it was a company article.
855:, so it is reliable coverage.
433:is an online profile as well.
2478:31 out of 42 mainspace edits
2289:Here is also a third source
985:News Wire. A press-release.
362:Looking at the refs in turn:
2896:21:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2875:21:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2846:17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2710:15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2662:11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2625:04:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2575:17:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2521:23:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2501:05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2463:22:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2429:18:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2415:18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2376:17:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2359:17:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2305:17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2263:17:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2246:17:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2207:17:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2172:17:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2133:17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2107:17:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2073:17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
2006:16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1963:16:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1897:23:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1879:16:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1853:15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1831:14:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1805:13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1757:19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1726:13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
1663:23:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
1597:22:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
1578:22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
1547:23:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
1510:18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
1011:22:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
988:No it is not. According to
735:13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
710:13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
671:11:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
620:14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
574:21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
529:21:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
473:18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
409:11:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
370:Forbes. Contributor. Non-RS
336:21:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
308:21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
288:21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
268:21:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
94:(AfD)? Read these primers!
74:22:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
2913:
2743:Also, taking into account
908:Financial announcements.
812:. This makes him notable.
647:, or in the alternative,
2747:and User:Girth Summit’s
1290:This is RS and in-depth.
1130:, Bloomberg is reliable.
756:Please do not modify it.
744:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
2476:No, you're right: with
1622:Salient points are that
878:Not a reliable source.
1191:, Reuters is reliable.
382:Press-release. Non-RS.
2446:few or no other edits
2393:few or no other edits
2322:few or no other edits
2280:few or no other edits
2224:few or no other edits
2150:few or no other edits
2090:few or no other edits
1980:few or no other edits
1774:few or no other edits
1698:Changed to keep below
1680:few or no other edits
1614:few or no other edits
1527:few or no other edits
1029:few or no other edits
591:few or no other edits
546:few or no other edits
490:few or no other edits
353:few or no other edits
92:Articles for deletion
2448:outside this topic.
2395:outside this topic.
2324:outside this topic.
2282:outside this topic.
2226:outside this topic.
2152:outside this topic.
2092:outside this topic.
1982:outside this topic.
1776:outside this topic.
1682:outside this topic.
1616:outside this topic.
1529:outside this topic.
1031:outside this topic.
593:outside this topic.
548:outside this topic.
492:outside this topic.
355:outside this topic.
2629:Changed my mind to
2550:User:197.89.19.112
2051:Also according to
718:Extended content.
438:Or take a look at
2652:
2603:. Zero secondary
2449:
2396:
2325:
2283:
2227:
2153:
2121:User:Girth Summit
2093:
1983:
1777:
1699:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1617:
1530:
1266:this is reliable.
1108:. Capital raised.
1032:
1013:
997:comment added by
594:
549:
493:
356:
310:
290:
109:Guide to deletion
99:How to contribute
72:
2904:
2888:
2885:
2649:
2640:
2607:sources = fails
2518:
2516:
2498:
2490:
2475:
2460:
2458:
2431:
2378:
2335:
2307:
2265:
2238:
2235:
2209:
2164:
2161:
2135:
2075:
1998:
1995:
1965:
1894:
1892:
1871:
1868:
1759:
1715:
1707:
1697:
1665:
1599:
1575:
1573:
1544:
1542:
1512:
1014:
787:
746:
732:
724:
715:
707:
699:
678:to billibil per
635:on this article
617:
615:
604:
576:
531:
475:
406:
404:
388:Wallmine. Trash.
338:
265:
263:
257:. Refs are PR.
244:
243:
229:
181:
169:
151:
89:
64:
34:
2912:
2911:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2893:
2886:
2883:
2676:senior reporter
2634:
2563:cast aspersions
2514:
2512:
2493:
2486:
2469:
2456:
2454:
2329:
2243:
2236:
2233:
2169:
2162:
2159:
2024:: According to
2003:
1996:
1993:
1890:
1888:
1876:
1869:
1866:
1709:
1701:
1571:
1569:
1540:
1538:
781:
774:
764:deletion review
742:
727:
720:
702:
695:
643:for me. Either
613:
611:
598:
419:Mark Zuckerberg
402:
400:
385:Forbes. Non-RS.
324:Mark Zuckerberg
261:
259:
186:
177:
142:
126:
123:
86:
83:
70:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2910:
2908:
2899:
2898:
2891:
2807:
2806:
2802:
2798:
2794:
2790:
2779:
2778:
2769:
2768:
2762:
2761:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2698:
2694:
2683:
2667:
2627:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2402:Cheetah Mobile
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2241:
2196:
2195:
2191:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2167:
2049:
2048:
2044:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2020:
2009:
2008:
2001:
1906:
1905:
1899:
1881:
1874:
1855:
1833:
1807:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1729:
1728:
1693:Tending delete
1686:
1685:
1648:
1647:
1637:
1631:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1581:
1580:
1565:right to exist
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1380:
1379:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1360:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1342:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1327:
1326:
1321:
1320:
1315:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1300:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1285:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1254:
1253:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1238:
1237:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1161:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1142:
1141:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1124:Paid profile.
1119:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1072:
1071:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1045:
1044:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
980:
979:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
949:
948:
942:
941:
935:
934:
928:
927:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
903:
902:
897:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
873:
872:
866:
865:
864:
863:
857:
856:
850:
849:
841:
840:
831:
830:
827:
823:
820:
816:
813:
802:Cheetah Mobile
773:
770:
769:
768:
748:
747:
738:
737:
713:
712:
673:
625:
624:
623:
622:
595:
554:Cheetah Mobile
515:
514:
503:
502:
495:
494:
459:
458:
454:
453:
444:
443:
435:
434:
429:
423:
422:
396:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
364:
363:
357:
312:
311:
291:
247:
246:
183:
122:
121:
116:
106:
101:
84:
82:
77:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2909:
2897:
2894:
2889:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2872:
2868:
2862:
2858:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2847:
2843:
2839:
2834:
2830:
2828:
2824:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2805:
2803:
2801:
2799:
2797:
2795:
2793:
2791:
2789:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2782:
2777:No consensus.
2776:
2773:
2771:
2770:
2766:
2764:
2763:
2759:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2752:
2750:
2746:
2741:
2740:
2735:
2730:
2729:
2723:
2722:
2719:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2672:senior editor
2668:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2647:
2645:
2643:
2638:
2632:
2628:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2614:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2601:WP:REFBOMBING
2598:
2594:
2590:
2587:and consider
2586:
2582:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2558:
2556:
2554:
2551:
2547:
2544:
2542:
2539:
2522:
2519:
2517:
2509:
2506:
2502:
2499:
2496:
2491:
2489:
2483:
2479:
2473:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2461:
2459:
2451:
2450:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2413:
2410:
2407:
2403:
2398:
2397:
2394:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2363:Not true, in
2362:
2361:
2360:
2357:
2354:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2333:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2291:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2244:
2239:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2194:
2192:
2189:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2183:
2173:
2170:
2165:
2155:
2154:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2116:
2113:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2061:
2059:
2055:
2053:
2047:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2031:
2029:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2019:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2013:
2012:Three sources
2007:
2004:
1999:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1935:
1933:
1931:
1929:
1927:
1925:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1916:
1914:
1912:
1909:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1877:
1872:
1863:
1859:
1856:
1854:
1851:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1783:
1782:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1743:
1739:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1713:
1705:
1696:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1684:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1651:
1645:
1641:
1639:According to
1638:
1635:
1632:
1629:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1582:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1566:
1562:
1557:
1554:
1553:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1487:
1482:
1481:
1476:
1474:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1447:
1444:According to
1443:
1442:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1428:
1427:
1419:
1416:According to
1415:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1399:
1391:
1388:According to
1387:
1386:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1376:
1375:
1367:
1366:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1348:According to
1347:
1346:
1345:
1340:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1274:
1273:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1249:
1248:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1233:
1225:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1199:
1198:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1175:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1156:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1114:
1113:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1094:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1067:
1066:
1059:
1056:
1053:According to
1052:
1051:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1040:
1039:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
990:
987:
986:
984:
983:
982:
981:
977:
975:
974:
973:
972:
960:
957:According to
956:
955:
953:
952:
951:
950:
946:
944:
943:
939:
937:
936:
932:
930:
929:
925:
923:
922:
914:
911:According to
910:
909:
907:
906:
905:
904:
900:
898:
895:
893:
892:
884:
881:According to
880:
879:
877:
876:
875:
874:
870:
868:
867:
862:Not specific.
861:
860:
859:
858:
854:
852:
851:
848:
845:
843:
842:
838:
836:
835:
834:
828:
824:
821:
817:
814:
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:
797:
794:
790:
785:
779:
778:
771:
767:
765:
761:
757:
752:
751:
750:
749:
745:
740:
739:
736:
733:
730:
725:
723:
717:
716:
711:
708:
705:
700:
698:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
674:
672:
669:
668:
667:
662:
661:
660:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
626:
621:
618:
616:
608:
602:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
547:
543:
539:
535:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
512:
509:
505:
504:
500:
497:
496:
491:
487:
483:
479:
474:
470:
466:
461:
460:
456:
455:
451:
448:
446:
445:
441:
437:
436:
432:
430:
427:
425:
424:
420:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
405:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
372:
369:
366:
365:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
264:
256:
252:
242:
238:
235:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
192:
189:
188:Find sources:
184:
180:
176:
173:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
124:
120:
117:
114:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
96:
95:
93:
88:
81:
78:
76:
75:
71:
69:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2863:
2859:
2855:No Consensus
2854:
2850:
2849:
2835:
2831:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2808:
2783:
2780:
2753:
2742:
2731:
2724:
2720:
2717:
2716:
2630:
2588:
2580:
2559:
2535:
2515:Giant-Dwarfs
2511:
2494:
2487:
2472:Giant-Dwarfs
2457:Giant-Dwarfs
2453:
2341:
2337:
2288:
2197:
2180:
2062:
2050:
2034:
2011:
2010:
1937:
1907:
1902:More sources
1901:
1891:Giant-Dwarfs
1887:
1883:
1857:
1835:
1827:Celestina007
1825:
1816:, attacking
1809:
1788:
1784:
1744:, violating
1692:
1691:
1652:
1649:
1584:
1568:
1564:
1555:
1537:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1483:
1477:
1461:
1455:
1343:
993:— Preceding
968:
832:
795:
791:
780:
776:
775:
755:
753:
743:
728:
721:
703:
696:
688:we should be
675:
665:
664:
658:
657:
648:
644:
636:
628:
610:
607:Todd Krasnow
508:Todd Krasnow
498:
414:
399:
397:
359:
315:
258:
248:
236:
230:
222:
215:
209:
203:
197:
187:
174:
85:
65:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2867:Marven Twen
2838:Marven Twen
2734:WP:BLUDGEON
2637:Marven Twen
2617:Narky Blert
2567:Marven Twen
2482:paid editor
2444:) has made
2434:Marven Twen
2421:Marven Twen
2391:) has made
2381:Marven Twen
2368:Marven Twen
2346:WP:BLUDGEON
2332:Marven Twen
2320:) has made
2310:Marven Twen
2297:Marven Twen
2278:) has made
2268:Marven Twen
2255:Marven Twen
2222:) has made
2212:Marven Twen
2199:Marven Twen
2148:) has made
2138:Marven Twen
2125:Marven Twen
2088:) has made
2078:Marven Twen
2065:Marven Twen
1978:) has made
1968:Marven Twen
1955:Marven Twen
1818:Scope_creep
1814:Marven Twen
1793:WP:BLOWITUP
1772:) has made
1762:Marven Twen
1749:Marven Twen
1712:Scope creep
1704:Marven Twen
1678:) has made
1668:Marven Twen
1655:Marven Twen
1612:) has made
1602:Marven Twen
1589:Marven Twen
1572:scope_creep
1541:scope_creep
1525:) has made
1515:Marven Twen
1502:Marven Twen
1027:) has made
1017:Marven Twen
999:Marven Twen
784:Scope creep
614:scope_creep
601:Marven Twen
589:) has made
579:Marven Twen
566:Marven Twen
544:) has made
534:Marven Twen
521:Marven Twen
488:) has made
478:Marven Twen
465:Marven Twen
403:scope_creep
351:) has made
341:Marven Twen
328:Marven Twen
316:Strong Keep
262:scope_creep
213:free images
58:bludgeoning
2745:WP:REFBOMB
1486:WP:REVENGE
659:Isaidnoway
633:WP:REFBOMB
440:Bill Gates
320:Bill Gates
2892:(blether)
2412:(contrib)
2406:Eggishorn
2356:(contrib)
2350:Eggishorn
2338:Bloomberg
2242:(blether)
2168:(blether)
2058:WP:ANYBIO
2002:(blether)
1947:WP:SIGCOV
1938:Based on
1875:(blether)
1850:(contrib)
1844:Eggishorn
1644:WP:FORBES
1350:WP:FORBES
1264:WP:FORBES
1224:WP:FORBES
1085:WP:FORBES
1050:Primary.
883:WP:FORBES
760:talk page
300:Shellwood
280:Shellwood
255:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
2827:WP:SBEXT
2749:WP:THREE
2728:indepth.
2702:Woodroar
2593:My Story
2585:bilibili
2581:Retarget
2442:contribs
2389:contribs
2318:contribs
2276:contribs
2220:contribs
2146:contribs
2099:Woodroar
2086:contribs
1976:contribs
1862:bilibili
1858:Redirect
1840:bilibili
1836:Redirect
1797:Woodroar
1770:contribs
1676:contribs
1610:contribs
1523:contribs
1439:WP:NCORP
1411:WP:NCORP
1259:Non-RS.
1106:WP:NCORP
1025:contribs
1007:contribs
995:unsigned
810:Bilibili
806:Kingsoft
772:Response
762:or in a
676:Redirect
653:bilibili
649:redirect
587:contribs
562:Bilibili
558:Kingsoft
542:contribs
486:contribs
421:'s page:
349:contribs
172:View log
128:Chen Rui
113:glossary
80:Chen Rui
62:Eddie891
54:Bilibili
50:redirect
39:or in a
2823:WP:BIAS
2718:Summary
2654:Martinp
2609:WP:NBIO
2589:salting
1951:WP:NOTE
1789:subject
1718:Martinp
1585:Comment
1556:Comment
826:please.
629:Comment
499:Comment
442:' page:
415:Comment
360:Comment
219:WP refs
207:scholar
145:protect
140:history
90:New to
2887:Summit
2691:WP:BIO
2687:WP:GNG
2613:WP:GNG
2409:(talk)
2353:(talk)
2237:Summit
2163:Summit
1997:Summit
1884:Delete
1870:Summit
1847:(talk)
1810:Delete
1785:Delete
1634:WP:BLP
1628:WP:BLP
1561:WP:TNT
1446:WP:BLP
1418:WP:BLP
1390:WP:BLP
1168:WP:BLP
1149:WP:BLP
1104:Fails
1055:WP:BLP
971:WP:GNG
959:WP:BLP
913:WP:BLP
808:, and
686:, and
666:(talk)
645:delete
641:WP:GNG
560:, and
251:WP:BIO
249:Fails
191:Google
149:delete
2884:Girth
2697:this.
2605:WP:RS
2497:erial
2234:Girth
2160:Girth
1994:Girth
1989:THREE
1867:Girth
819:CEOs.
731:erial
706:erial
234:JSTOR
195:books
179:Stats
166:views
158:watch
154:links
16:<
2871:talk
2842:talk
2825:and
2739:you.
2706:talk
2689:and
2674:and
2658:talk
2631:keep
2621:talk
2611:and
2595:and
2571:talk
2438:talk
2425:talk
2385:talk
2372:talk
2314:talk
2301:talk
2272:talk
2259:talk
2216:talk
2203:talk
2142:talk
2129:talk
2103:talk
2082:talk
2069:talk
1972:talk
1959:talk
1949:and
1943:WP:V
1822:this
1801:talk
1766:talk
1753:talk
1722:talk
1672:talk
1659:talk
1606:talk
1593:talk
1519:talk
1506:talk
1021:talk
1003:talk
583:talk
570:talk
538:talk
525:talk
482:talk
469:talk
345:talk
332:talk
304:talk
284:talk
253:and
227:FENS
201:news
162:logs
136:talk
132:edit
68:Work
2857:?
2583:to
2342:one
1910:,
1860:to
1838:to
684:BLP
680:ATD
651:to
597:Hi
241:TWL
170:– (
52:to
2873:)
2844:)
2774:,
2708:)
2660:)
2623:)
2615:.
2573:)
2488:——
2440:•
2432:—
2427:)
2387:•
2379:—
2374:)
2316:•
2308:—
2303:)
2274:•
2266:—
2261:)
2218:•
2210:—
2205:)
2144:•
2136:—
2131:)
2105:)
2084:•
2076:—
2071:)
2014::
1974:•
1966:—
1961:)
1941:,
1921:,
1803:)
1795:.
1768:•
1760:—
1755:)
1724:)
1674:•
1666:—
1661:)
1642:,
1608:•
1600:—
1595:)
1521:•
1513:—
1508:)
1475:.
1222:,
1083:,
1023:•
1015:—
1009:)
1005:•
804:,
722:——
697:——
585:•
577:—
572:)
556:,
540:•
532:—
527:)
484:•
476:—
471:)
449:,
347:•
339:—
334:)
322:,
306:)
298:.
286:)
278:.
221:)
164:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
2869:(
2840:(
2704:(
2682:.
2656:(
2639::
2635:@
2619:(
2569:(
2495:S
2474::
2470:@
2436:(
2423:(
2383:(
2370:(
2334::
2330:@
2312:(
2299:(
2270:(
2257:(
2214:(
2201:(
2190:,
2140:(
2127:(
2101:(
2080:(
2067:(
2043:,
1970:(
1957:(
1904::
1799:(
1764:(
1751:(
1720:(
1714::
1710:@
1706::
1702:@
1670:(
1657:(
1604:(
1591:(
1517:(
1504:(
1319:,
1314:,
1277:,
1252:,
1209:,
1202:,
1170:.
1151:.
1117:,
1070:,
1043:,
1019:(
1001:(
978:,
786::
782:@
729:S
704:S
655:.
603::
599:@
581:(
568:(
564:.
536:(
523:(
513:.
480:(
467:(
343:(
330:(
302:(
282:(
245:)
237:·
231:·
223:·
216:·
210:·
204:·
198:·
193:(
185:(
182:)
175:·
168:)
130:(
115:)
111:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.