Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Chang


 * 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   keep. Havin been significantly improved in many ways in a collaborative manner,result is now keep (non-admin closure) ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 10:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Gloria Chang

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Being the former president of a Student's Association does not make one notable, nor does working for Greenpeace. Contested prod, for some ill-defined reason. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdraw - since notability is now more specific and verified by the sources.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing turns up in a UK newspaper library search. Hiding T 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. What was ill-defined about my reason for contesting the prod? It was that the subject is notable for having significant coverage in independent reliable sources, such as the article in the South China Morning Post that I referenced in the article and many others found by a Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when did G-hits equal notability? I proded for lack of any notability - you muttered something about Google news search. What, pray tell, makes her notable? That some newspaper ran a "day in the life of a Greenpeace activist" is not grounds for writing her biography. "She is currently working at Greenpeace Hong Kong as a Climate and Energy campaigner" is not an assertion of notability. There is nothing notable in this article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of g-hits doesn't equal notability, but the quality and content of the articles found does. You appear to be using a subjective judgement of importance rather than Wikipedia's definition of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. Notability is inherently subjective, because life is subjective. Notability is not, and can never sanely be, about doing arithmetic on the number and quality of sources. We have to ask, what is she supposedly notable for - and make a judgement. Now I ask you again, why do you think this person is notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If this is the standard required for a BLP these days, I'm worried. I have more significant coverage in independent reliable sources GTD 10:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - She could have told the reporter anything. This one source is not enough. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ' Delete - Notability is not established by that particular newspaper article, no. BLP1E. Merge it to Cheng Yiu Chung, the chancellor . former vice'-chancellor. Oh wait, he doesn't have an article. I bet he's not notable either. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep now that the article has had sufficient high quality sources, with references to Chang that establish notability added. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The vice chancellor is the person in charge of a university in the English system inherited by Hong Kong. The chancellor is simply a figurehead. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. And what about the other sources found in the Google News search I linked above, such as The Chicago Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor? There are also ISBN 9789622096134 p. 291 identifying the subject as a key opposition figure in the years following the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China, and ISBN 9789629371456 pp. 878-879 covering her role as a Catholic activist, Time Magazine's Asiaweek describing her as a prominent activist, her specific role in a campaign, and as one of the icons of the year 2000, coverage in The Standard of her leadership of student protests, and more coverage behind a paywall from the South China Morning Post. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * sofixit... an AfD is a great time to bring an article up to snuff. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Everything in the article is referenced to a reliable source, so what is there to be fixed? Here we are discussing the notability of the subject, not how many sources are in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you bring up the other sources then, if not to establish notability? Defend the sole source in there. That would be what I would expect you to do, if you don't think other sources are needed. You seem to be using whatever argument fits rather than using a consistent approach. This article, as it stands, does not establish the notability of the subject. It needs improvement to do that. Go forth and do that. ++Lar: t/c 12:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't run an edit-on-demand service. Notability is an attribute of article subjects, not of article contents. Citations go in articles for the purposes of verifiabilily. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability may be an attribute of article subjects, but demonstrated notability is an attribute of articles. Unsourced BLPs are subject to summary deletion, as far as I am concerned. No one is forcing you to add anything at all to the article, but since there is no deadline if the article is not currently adequately sourced, you need to either bring it up to snuff, find someone else who will, or stand aside while it is deleted. That is no reflection on you, it's just the way things need to be. BLPs are a huge problem. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, unsourced BLPs are a problem, but every fact in this article was sourced to Hong Kong's equivalent of the New York Times or The Times. It's unsourced content in BLPs that has the potential to cause harm, not non-demonstration of notability in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This one was unsourced, as I adjudge it. Now it isn't. But if it had been in the state it was when first nominated, I would have deleted it outright. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason to be rude. That the sources exist is enough to establish establish notability. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But not enough to keep the article. The article needs to be acceptable under policy. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: No notability established. Surely we can do better than this, folks. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Now well sourced. Too bad it took an AFD to get some attention to this BLP. Now, can we focus on the thousands of other BLPs that need attention?  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would love to do that, but I have to spend so much of my time fighting off deletion nominations for articles that are sourced to reliable sources such as the South China Morning Post that I don't have any left to look at the more important cases such as the genuinely unsourced ones about children or that contain potentially damaging content. Let's concentrate on the articles such as the one I saw a week or two ago about a 16-year-old who was claimed to have performed in porn films and an administrator had prodded as unnotable rather than deleting immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't fly in this usage... that there are other BLPs that are more problematic doesn't mean this one wasn't. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the argument being made. The argument is that people need to stop trying to delete the genuinely notable ones and focus on the vast majority of much more problematic ones. Scott's systematic prodding for example is probably a better way of going about this (although he did then AfD this article and my impression is that the largscale prodding can lead possibly to systemic bias issues). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most news articles mention her as a Greenspeace spokesperson, but are not actually about her. The South China Morning Post article is not enough to establish notability. Possibly together with the new articles Phil Bridger found above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (Asaiweek cover'll do me)  Comment  (tending to keep) I wonder if there are any cantonese-language sources. I will place a post on a WP:Hong Kong page if I can find one. The story sounds interesting (who was the main contributor to the resignation of the former Vice Chancellor of The University of Hong Kong Professor Cheng Yiu Chung)'' what was that about? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are tending to keep on the basis of a currently unverified and ill-defined assertion, which you find "interesting". Please tell me why?--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * erm, no, there are two themes - (1) currently is significantly mentioned in one reliable source, only needs one more to satisfy notability. thus I am thinking it may head that way and hence my 'tending to' comment, (2) yes the statement is currently unverified and ill-defined - I just noted my curiosity as it doesn't read like blatant vandalism and in which case I was curious as to what it was. If it is/was in fact a notable story, then she has a couple of bordering-notable things on her plate. Anyway, I will see what turns up, and I am pretty sure some folks familiar with Hong Kong issues will make a better job of it than I will. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Notified here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have added some sources. She was also on the cover of Asiaweek: . --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for that. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per sources from Phil Bridger and Apoc. Note also that the nominator has been canvassing for delete votes on an external website.. Closure should take this into account when judging consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, the closer should take the strength of the argument into account mainly. And since you've made no argument, that rather weakens you. This is not an issue of sources, but of notability. Why do you think this person is notable? Please make your case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus means consensus. Strength of argument is judged in part based on how many people are convinced. Of course, if that weren't the case why would the nominator and you and others bother canvassing anyways? In any event, I did make an argument. There are soiurces given by Phil and Apoc. If you need me to be more explicit I can: Those sources demonstrate notability. They meet WP:BIO multiple times over. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Sources don't "demonstrate notability" they never have and never will. All sources do is verify information, the question then remains as to whether the information renders the person notable. So, I see no argument in your statement. (Oh, and if you don't know the difference between canvassing and making a rhetorical and ironic point, then you're not really getting this. Can we stick to the facts of the article please?)--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources do demonstrate notability but their existence. That's the entire point of the primary notability criterion: that a subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We have that here. Many times over. And in any event, there's nothing ironic about saying explicitly on a fairly pro-deletion forum "Perhaps people here would like to vote in this discussion - I could use some deletion support." JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you mean you don't see the irony. Sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious. You should watch Spartacus, you'd enjoy it, really. Back on point, sources don't demonstrate notability - that's clearly daft. Notability cannot be reduced to a sum, one has to make a judgement on significance - sources may help to make that judgement, but they don't "demonstrate it". They simply don't.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Throwing a cliched reference to a well-known movie =/= irony. In any event, that's precisely what notability means on Wikipedia. The presence of multiple, independent, reliable sources. This has been true for a very long time. Simply making up new definitions doesn't cut it. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Notability is inherently subjective and is determined through discussion towards consensus, not by counting sources. Sources verify. Sure without sources, we can't verify notability. But after verifying facts we need to assess their notability. Sorry, but life is subjective and cannot be reduced to a science student's sum. Thankfully, what you describe is not the way wikipedia actually works, and never has been.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. That's precisely the point of the primary notability criterion. It minimizes subjectivity. Do we have multiple, non-trivial independent reliable sources? Yes. Then the subject is notable. Any claim otherwise is simply an attempt to justify using the hideously ill-defined terms like "marginal notability" which no one has codified. You can't rewrite basic policy and basic history of policy to suit your goals. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't codify life and significance. It isn't possible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim you could. The point is that we have a clear set of policies and guidelines which make more or less objective standards. The entire point of such policies is that they remove the subjective element from us as much as possible and simply look at who ends up being important enough for reliable sources to talk about, whether or not they are making the same decisions we would. That's why say Britney Spears is notable regardless of how much she's unimportant in any reasonable view of the universe. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. She appears to be known only in her city's local area, and that in itself is debatable.  I was made aware of this discussion by a post on Wikipedia Review, where I also post notifications about BLP AfD's that I initiate.  Doing so is not a violation of WP:CANVASS.  Anyway, the subject obviously does not meet our notability guidelines.  As an aside, some of the contributors here voting to keep have dubious, at best    records when it comes to protecting BLPs on marginally notable people (of which this article is not one), if the closer wants to take that into account when weighing the arguments. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cla68, you've already had explianed to you that tha content in question is different, that the addition of the phrase "Jewish lobby" occurred after I edited the article, that Israeli and Jewish are not the same thing at all and that the content in question that I kept is well-sourced and still in the article. Presumably the closer can take a close look at this and see how utterly wrong you are. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with you but I didn't need to say that in this way in this forum and have lined through it. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, and now that we're moving on to substantive issues do you want to explain how she doesn't meet WP:BIO? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notable activist involved in historically significant issues of democracy and academic freedom in HK, well sourced. Now someone needs to work on sources for related articles. . . dave souza, talk 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable enough.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per dave souza. - Jack l  08:21, 10 April 2009 (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.