Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Fang

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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Fang

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG due to insufficient WP:RS. As a former writer for ThinkProgress, Fang's byline may be familiar to some readers, however he has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article is half-resume, half-tangential political debate, and the material specifically about him is cited entirely to primary sources, particularly his own archived posts at ThinkProgress. Meanwhile, the AP and NYT stories included as sources make no mention of Fang whatsoever. Following a search at Google, Google Books, Google News archive and Highbeam, I've concluded that no reliable, third-party sources exist to establish notability. WWB (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator did their homework well. The description of the article is accurate and the searching is persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nom that the article needs to be cleaned up, but the subject does seem to have received enough coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There has been non-trivial third party coverage of the subject in the Washington Post and Boston Globe, and more trivial mentions in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Winnipeg Free Press, Charleston Gazette, Al Jazeera, CNET, New York Times, CBS News, MPR News, Cape Cod Times, and Fast Company. There have also been non-trival mentions by the Business Insider, although the reliability of the news site is debatable, and the The Atlantic, although the article is a commentary on an op-ed piece. This is definitely one of those borderline cases, but I think there's enough to warrant a keep.--SGCM (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources just quote Fang's blog posts on other subjects, the NYT for example; there is no way a coherent biography could be written from them. Some are reposts of other articles (i.e. Charleston Gazette, of Politico) or are letters-to-the-editor (Boston Globe) and in several his name is mentioned only once (Al-Jazeera, CBS, Fast Company). As stated in the nom: his name pops up in reliable sources on account of previously writing for ThinkProgress, but none "address the subject directly in detail", so none can be "significant coverage", and I think it's clear subject fails WP:GNG. WWB (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post coverage and the Business Insider article are non-trivial mentions. As I said, this is one of those borderline cases, that when evaluated in its entirety, does come out barely notable. As you've written, many reliable sources have quoted and cited the subject, which does meet the "widely cited by peers or successors" criteria for journalists in the WP:BIO (WP:AUTHOR) guidelines .--SGCM (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about "widely cited by peers"; I suppose the number of reliable sources involved probably counts as "widely". So I can see the rationale for a "weak keep", although I think if cleaned up it would a stub at best. WWB (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2012 (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.