Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Fang (2nd 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. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lee Fang
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All sources are not third party, trivial or indirect coverage of subject. Not notable. Loomspicker (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC, they are all quoting his blog posts or bios by news organisations. Fails WP:ANYBIO as well, which is not necessary, but helps.2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 13:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:SIGCOV The subject is the source for a good number of other journalists and reputable sources, such as NPR, MSNBC, etc., and he does count as a expert under notability standards of WP:Author: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I have added some sources for traditional, non-partisan media. His articles have attracted widespread attention among the political press and not for just one event. I disagree that he fails to meet WP:BASIC both on the number of citations and the fact that the policy allows for primary sources if notability does not hang on them, which is the case here. Enough secondary sources do discuss his reporting. Moreover, if you include coverage from the U.S. alternative press on both the right and the left, then the source without a doubt has been given enough coverage. Crtew (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks not much different from before, which of the new sources you added make the subject notable?--Loomspicker (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Too soon. There is not even an article on the publication that employs him. He seems only to be mentioned in passing in the cited articles. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep:Cited in NY TImes and the Washington Post and widely published in progressive media such as truthout, alternet and thenation robkall —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first article you cited is about Michael Goldfarb and the second is an opinion column. Both cover Fang only in passing. Have you found any articles covering him substantially? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it's an opinion column or not, what does that have to do with notability? I believe you may be confusing the standard for reliability with the standard for notability.  Loonymonkey (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was listed here without citing one of the valid reasons for deletion and, as yet, no editors have provided one (other than a vague "not notable" which fails scrutiny, given the number of reliable sources that have referred to the subject). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the sources that provide substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? I wasn't able to find any and this is a valid reason for deletion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the same article? Looking at the refs, he writes for several notable publications, his articles have been written about by many notable publications and he himself is often mentioned in articles about his work.  Sure, he's no celebrity, but that's never been our standard for notability.  On its face, this AfD seems to be without merit. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think passing mentions are enough. But we will see what others think. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Crtew. Fang's work has received significant coverage, deletion would accomplish nothing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (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.