Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicia Tang (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Nakon 02:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Felicia Tang
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only notable as VICTIM whose accused murderer was found not guilty. That's no basis to write an article on and this should only be covered by any article about the accused or the crime. Otherwise fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the previous AfD; notability is not temporary. She was a public figure who was marginally notable for her short career, but enough that her death received significant coverage in reliable sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The 2009 AFD was a horror show, and resulted in significant disregard of core policies. Very little of the sourcing is genuinely reliable; instead, tabloid-quality coverage of a sensational murder case was picked up and repeated from mirrors of content that was deleted from Wikipedia uncontroversially in no small part because it was unreliable. Felicia Tang was no more than an uncredited extra in a few mainstream films; at the time of her death, as I recall, she wasn't even mentioned in the full-length IMDB cast lists for those films. She also wasn't a porn performer; instead, she made some T&A videos which were clearly NSFW but apparently no "stronger" than Red Shoe Diaries, Showtime After Dark, and "Skinemax". But through the zeal of some Wikipedia editors who were insistent on memorializing every woman who undresses for a camera, her family now is comforted by an enduring Internet presentation of her as a sex worker and a drug addict. Just about every premise for notability of the subject proves wrong, yet a substantially inaccurate article persists. Not something Wikipedia can be proud of in any way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first of the two 2009 AfD's which you started closed with a Delete six days before her death. You say now that the AfD'd article was "deleted from Wikipedia uncontroversially in no small part because it was unreliable", and yet I see not a word of "unreliable" in the first 2009 AfD.  Next, why did you say in that 2009 nomination that she failed WP:PORNBIO if you now say that she "wasn't a porn performer"?  And now you seem to be claiming that CBSNews and the LATimes each got their material from Wikipedia mirrors, but these news media are WP:RS, and you are not.  The point is not that your opinion in this regard doesn't matter, but I think you'd need to do more than make unsourced assertions.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think that the previous AfD in 2009 went through a lot of these same issues and is very illustrative here. Basically, the subject under consideration here again now has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" and/or passes GNG pretty easily - with plenty of mentions from Kompas, CBS News (several times), the Los Angeles Times (several times), the Pasadena Star-News, The Sydney Morning Herald, WRC-TV & KTLA - just to name a few. These publications not only covered this subject's death, but they also went into varying amounts of detail about this subject's life before her death. I've pretty heavily edited the article under consideration here (both recently and earlier this year) in order to try & see if there were any valid concerns about content "from mirrors of content that was deleted from Wikipedia", and I tried to be careful to weed out anything that looked odd. These same concerns were apparently aired unsuccessfully in 2009 on the article's talk page as well. If the article needs to be changed (content-wise) or renamed now, then so be it, but Wikipedia can pretty clearly have a reliable article about the subject here at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to meet notability guidelines for pornographic actors. The coverage of her murder is not enough to propel her to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hullaballoo - I apologize for how this is gonna come out ....but ..... if you take away the death sources you have nothing but IMDb crap (which aren't sources!) ... So despite her being an actress and working at all these different places - the article is only sourced on her death and nothing else (I can't find anything else either on the subject except her death) so IMHO I don't believe she's notable and one could argue Brian Lee Randone could have an article and this be redirected there.... Point is she's "notable" for her death and not much else so as it stands this article is in some respects a Memorial and that's it .... so IMHO she's a non notable actress who fails PORNBIO & GNG. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with using IMDb as a citation for simple things like their reliable cast listings, especially when (as in this case here) they are backed up by other reliable sources in addition to IMDb. Guy1890 (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep firstly because of the previous AfD, notability is not temporary. plenty of reliable sources and high profile case. Clearly keep article. Also per WP:GNG. Just because she made her career within the porn industry doesnt make her notability less notable than an actress within mainstream film.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly that is not the case otherwise we wouldn't have PORNBIO for porn actors and NACTOR for mainstream actors. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a case to move to Felicia Tang Lee as the name most often used by  reliable sources, especially in Australia, but the 2013 decision of 48 Hours to go with her trade name suggests leaving it where it is.  The article has sources from nationally recognized media both in the US and Australia, with 77 inline citations already present in the article.  The dead links found after the AfD nomination and not notated by the nominator give the impression that the nominator did not click on the links of each of the sources in the article before concluding that they failed GNG.  WP:BEFORE analysis has not been provided for the versions of this article on three other Wikipedia's.  I'll list a few media with sources I found with Google searches: cbsnews, huffingtonpost, and LA Times; and from Australia abc.net.au, dailytelegraph.com.au, and theaustralian.com.  CBSNews continued to follow this story into 2014 with a news article and a 48 Hours segment called "The Preacher's Passion".  The segment initially aired on June 1, 2013 and was updated on Aug. 2, 2014.  A quote, "Brian Randone's murder trial lasted four weeks. The trial had become quite the sensation, with local media dubbing it the case of 'the preacher and the porn star.'  The newspapers just grabbed onto that..."  (www.cbsnews.com/news/the-mysterious-death-of-felicia-tang/)  Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - notable. Humbug! showed very subjective attitude towards articles for pornographic actors. Delete all, then you satisfied!--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing establishes that she is a well-known murder victim, albeit such a minor actress/model that I would support moving article to Murder of Felicia Wang. While  I agree that the 2nd AFD correctly supported Keep onthe basis of the extensive coverage,  I am  impressed by the ongoing coverage here:    and here: ], for example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.