Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Portia Li: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:14, 31 March 2015 editM.boli (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,681 edits Portia Li: I think the argument for keeping the page isn't an OTHERSTUFF argument.← Previous edit Revision as of 00:22, 1 April 2015 edit undoRightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,091 edits Portia Li: rebutNext edit →
Line 42: Line 42:
and this was just a small sampling. I propose we consider this article to be a stub and trust the good faith of the other Misplaced Pages editors to expand the information on this article. The very best of regards, and this was just a small sampling. I propose we consider this article to be a stub and trust the good faith of the other Misplaced Pages editors to expand the information on this article. The very best of regards,
:<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC) :<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
:If the editor above {{u|Bfpage}} believes that the subjects of the article above do not meet ], ], or ], than those articles can be PRODed or taken to AfD. Just being a journalist doesn't make the journalist notable; just cause the journalist writes a lot doesn't make the journalist notable. It would be like saying, because I write X number of articles, or contributes Y% of certain highly read articles than I should be notable. Nope. Doesn't work that way.

:If non-primary sources give significant coverage of the subject of this article than the subject meets ]. Really simple. So far I have seen that meet ]. Now if that same ''WSJ'' article is republished in other reliable sources, that single piece only counts once, not multiple times. Thus, it is ]. One article does not make ].--] (]) 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Two reasons. 1) Li doesn't seem to me less notable than the huge number of NPR and BBC reporters who have Misplaced Pages articles. 2) If you Google her Chinese name 李秀蘭 and the name of her newspaper 世界日報 you get a lot of hits. Her articles seem to be widely republished by mainstream news for overseas Chinese, e.g. China Daily and Sina.com. (There are a number of Baidu articles about people with that name, but I think they are all not her. Nothing in zh.wikipedia. My Chinese is rather limited.) I think that if there are articles about Li, they will be found in the Chinese language press ] (]) 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - Two reasons. 1) Li doesn't seem to me less notable than the huge number of NPR and BBC reporters who have Misplaced Pages articles. 2) If you Google her Chinese name 李秀蘭 and the name of her newspaper 世界日報 you get a lot of hits. Her articles seem to be widely republished by mainstream news for overseas Chinese, e.g. China Daily and Sina.com. (There are a number of Baidu articles about people with that name, but I think they are all not her. Nothing in zh.wikipedia. My Chinese is rather limited.) I think that if there are articles about Li, they will be found in the Chinese language press ] (]) 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:Please see ]. Just because a journalist is published, doesn't make the journalist notable.--] (]) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC) :Please see ]. Just because a journalist is published, doesn't make the journalist notable.--] (]) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:22, 1 April 2015

Portia Li

Portia Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No explanation or claim of notability. Sources mention the subject, but aren't about the subject. Onorem (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep - she appears to be quite notable.   Bfpage |leave a message  18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails both the general notability criteria and the alternative biography criteria. Being a "senior reporter" for the local California office of a large New York-based newspaper does not automatically confer notability, nor do the stories they cover, especially ones with literally dozens (if not hundreds) working on them like the SARS epidemic. Reporters report and other reporters occasionally quote them. That's their job. The only source in the article which remotely focuses on her work is a column in the Wall Street Journal back in 2001 , and even that one appears to be incredibly sparse on biographical detail. Most of it is behind a pay wall, but the only biographical information it appears to provide is that her father was a businessman, she was born in Hong Kong, once worked for an unnamed paper there, and got a Masters degree from the University of Utah. I have copyedited the article to remove grossly exaggerated claims about her prominence which were not confirmed by the citations. A particularly egregious example was the former section entitled Receives recognition from Hillary Clinton claiming that "Li was singled out in 2007 by then presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for an apology..." This was completely misleading. In this minor snafu over press credentials, Clinton apologized to the three newspapers involved and their editors-in-chief and reporters. Li was simply one of the three reporters. If I had access to the full WSJ article, I suspect some of the other claims would also be found to be exaggerated. The remaining articles merely mention her in passing. I'm willing to change my mind, if significant in-depth coverage of her does emerge, but for now one column in the WSJ 14 years ago does not constitute that. Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Voceditenore I did not run into a pay wall for the Wall Street Journal. I can send you the link if you'd like. Much of the notability is based upon this Wall Street Journal article, which I'm guessing that you haven't been able to read yet since you mention the existence of a pay wall. I thought the quotes were quite remarkable and established notability. Best Regards,  Bfpage |leave a message  14:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Bfpage, the WSJ is behind a paywall in Europe (beyond the first paragraph). Given the misuse of the other sources (outlined below) as well as the Receives recognition from Hillary Clinton I outlined above (not referenced to the WSJ article and occurring 6 years later), I would need a specific quote from the WSJ that supports the claim she "was credited for having a major part in freeing the physicist", not simply the quote "'Portia was way out in front,' stated Policy Director of Chinese for Affirmative Action Ted Wan." Way out in front in what way? For example, this article on the subject in The New Republic credits her pieces in the World Journal as playing a part in raising awareness, along with pieces in another Chinese-language American newspaper by other reporters, but also credits many, many other people and organizations and indeed suggests that others played a far more important role in getting him freed. The phrasing in the WP article did not reflect that.
I would also need a quote from the WSJ that explicitly supports the contention that her reporting and her reporting alone prompted FBI investigation into San Francisco gang extortion. That was the clear implication behind a section titled Prompts FBI investigation into San Francisco gang extortion.
The cited source "What To Do About Bird Flu" does not remotely support the claim that "She was recognized by the Chinese community as taking the lead in reporting on the SARS (bird flu) crisis.".
Finally this source is simply a notice about a conference in San Francisco at which she was one of the speakers, not "the featured speaker".
What it boils down to is that her entire notability rests on one complimentary column about her work written 14 years ago. In my view that is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. Others, of course, may well disagree, but that's what AfD discussions are for. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have included a few more references to support the notability of this journalist. In addition, I have found a number of journalistic stubs that also have even more pressing concerns of notability compared to this article. These are:Articles on journalists with possible notability concerns:

and this was just a small sampling. I propose we consider this article to be a stub and trust the good faith of the other Misplaced Pages editors to expand the information on this article. The very best of regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If the editor above Bfpage believes that the subjects of the article above do not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR, than those articles can be PRODed or taken to AfD. Just being a journalist doesn't make the journalist notable; just cause the journalist writes a lot doesn't make the journalist notable. It would be like saying, because I write X number of articles, or contributes Y% of certain highly read articles than I should be notable. Nope. Doesn't work that way.
If non-primary sources give significant coverage of the subject of this article than the subject meets WP:GNG. Really simple. So far I have seen one article (in the WSJ) that meet WP:SIGCOV. Now if that same WSJ article is republished in other reliable sources, that single piece only counts once, not multiple times. Thus, it is WP:TOOSOON. One article does not make WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Two reasons. 1) Li doesn't seem to me less notable than the huge number of NPR and BBC reporters who have Misplaced Pages articles. 2) If you Google her Chinese name 李秀蘭 and the name of her newspaper 世界日報 you get a lot of hits. Her articles seem to be widely republished by mainstream news for overseas Chinese, e.g. China Daily and Sina.com. (There are a number of Baidu articles about people with that name, but I think they are all not her. Nothing in zh.wikipedia. My Chinese is rather limited.) I think that if there are articles about Li, they will be found in the Chinese language press M.boli (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because a journalist is published, doesn't make the journalist notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I don't believe that just because a journalist is published doesn't make the journalist notable. What I do believe the case to be here is that this journalist is highly published, may have a daily news column along with organizing anti-discrimination activities within the Chinese-American community and I have run into the language barrier to properly assess those sources. I do the search, find the events and huge volume of her work and then get stuck because either I can't get google translator to work properly/she uses a different Chinese name or I get the surname confused with her first name.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I understand the OTHERSTUFF point, but when I wrote that there are huge numbers of articles on NPR and BBC reporters it wasn't supposed to be an otherstuff argument. I think that media figures are extensively covered by Misplaced Pages for a good reason: they have audiences. A lot of people encounter them through their reportage, so there is a natural constituency for information about these people. People want to know "who is this person who produces these news articles I disagree/agree with?" "What kind of name is Doualy Xaykaothao and how do I pronounce it?" My argument for notability is that Li appears to be in the same category: a reporter with a large audience. By virtue of producing a lot of articles for for a major newspaper and having them frequently republished, for more than two decades.
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Taiwan. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject China. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've left notes on the talk pages of WikiProjects Taiwan and China , , to see if anyone there can help us with sourcing from the Chinese-language press. It's quite possible, that more about Li herself, rather than the stories she covers will be found in Chinese newspapers. If so, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. As for the the list of utterly non-notable journalists who have WP articles, that's an argument for deleting those articles, not keeping this one. Similarly, the fact that she reports on notable stories does not in itself make her notable. Notability does not transfer in that way. She is simply doing her job. Literally hundreds of reporters cover the major new stories. As for the "new sources" added, all but one were duplicates of the USA Today article. The remaining one is simply a mention of the paper she works for. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, while the subject has written multiple pieces, that doesn't make the subject notable per WP:NAUTHOR. The subject has received multiple mentions, but few if any have the subject as the primary subject of the reliable source. Furthermore, few if any of those reliable sources given what one would consider significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. Therefore, the subject appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories: