Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia 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. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Lia Chang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotion for a non-notable photographer. It's hard to find any non-trivial third part coverage about her. damiens.rf 15:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure promotion that is spreading to other articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This person appears to me to be a legitimate journalist and photographer. The Library of Congress created a collection for her photographs.  This seems to be a considerable bio article with lots of references to major news sources, although I agree that it is badly under-referenced and needs many more, as well as more clean-up.  The mere assertions above in this nomination are not evidence.  What is the evidence here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ssilvers have your tried to find major news sources that are actually about her? I spent about a half hour looking when I made my first over this article the other day and came up with little. I am not sure if this fails NOTABILITY yet, but neither did I find "lots of references to major news sources". Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I looked around for like 20 seconds and found that she is the subject of her own chapter in this book.  She is favorably reviewed here in The New York Times, among several other high-quality sources already shown in the article.  Numerous photos of hers have appeared in such major publications as The Wall Street Journal.  So, my initial impression is that this AfD has basically been made recklessly, as have the massive deletions by several users to sources written by this journalist.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lia Chang writing about herself is not independent of her. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly notable, as the sources quoted by Ssilvers above demonstrates. Jack1956 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ssilvers. If he has already found these sources, I am sure they will be others around too. – SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are those (third-part, indepent) sources??? Where is the non-trivial coverage about her? --damiens.rf 13:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unquestionably notable, since she has works in the permanent collection of major museums, which is the basic criterion for creative artists. The NYT review of her book confirms it, and it and the other reviews are independent sources. . The article very obviously needs considerable improvement, primarily by cutting--articles written as promotionally as this trend to attract unfavorable attention,especially if the main WP-relevant notability is not clearly stated in the beginning. To improve the article, I will remove some of the obvious minor material so it focusses on the notability. (If she were less notable I would have considered G11,but for someone clearly important I prefer to rewrite; if the rewriting arouses opposition, then G11 is in order because it cannot be fixed by normal editing. For borderline importance & borderline promotionalism combined, I go here.)  DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (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.