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.
Delete per BLP1E, BLPCRIME and lacking a prior public figure stance. The article only exists because Axios published this report which makes the assertion that Fang is a Chinese spy, which triggered several other media reports to see if they could see anything corroborating (this makes it a BLP1E issue). While this assertion may be true, that is not the same as an authoritative law agency making a sentencing or the like (the Axios report event has said the FBI has no comment on their investigative report). There may be factors of the Axios report to include elsewhere but there's no reason to have a separate article on the assertions that have yet to be proven out by law enforcement or in course for the person they are accusing. --Masem (t) 14:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
But here is the thing though just because the FBI didn't make a comment on the Axios investigation doesn't mean they didn't accuse her of anything which it turns out they did. They got together reps and senators not run of the mill ones I'm talking big-wigs like Pelosi and apparently Swalwell too back in 2015 to tell them about the intel ops that Fang was running and after that Swalwell cut off ties wth her. If that's not a red flag that says Fang committed a crime then I don't know what is. [2]Afalfafa (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Afalfafa (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Axios - and the media overall - have zero legal authority to create a legal case against a person like this under our BLP /CRIME aspects. This is the type of stuff we're supposed to avoid with a 10 foot pole. --Masem (t) 03:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Axios investigation isn't creating a legal case against Fang, that was already done by the FBI. (surveillance, meet with Congress, etc) It's merely reporting on the accusations that have been levelled against her. I got no idea where you got this idea that Axios was trying to play the role of judge, jury and executioner. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe this is currently a BLP1E situation where there shouldn't be a standalone article. The 1E being the Axios report itself. All pertinent information can be put into the Swalwell article without necessarily naming her due to WP:SUSPECT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - i would say that the article should be keept. The event has been discussed in much depth by multitude of references (Wikipedia:Notability (events)/Depth of coverage) and the intense backlash against not just fang, but all the politicians she got associated with shows that the event has had lasting effect. (Wikipedia:Notability (events)/Lasting effects) the votes which say that the article should be delleted only because fang is notable for only one event (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Subjects notable only for one event) appear very much to be mistaken. There are three conditions which have to met and one of them is "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." i think it is safe to say from the many references and lasting consequences of her event that this ha not been met. Festerhauer (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — Festerhauer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a) §1 is invalidated because the nature of Fang's activities eo ipso means that she is notable for more than one event.
b) §2 is invalidated because Fang is not a low-profile individual but rather a public figure: the background and activities sections of her page indicates that
(i) she had participated in an attention-seeking manner (most notably as a bundler for a sitting US Congressman) in publicity for multiple election campaigns
(ii) she held a position of power
(iii) she was engaged in high-profile activity as a lifelong endeavor, but is now attempting to be low-profile
(iv) the allegations she's been involved in has been noteworthy, relevant, and well documented (as has already been mentioned) and
(v) these allegations have been documented by a multitude of reliable published sources (as has also already been mentioned)
c) §3 is invalidated by the article's satisfaction of the aformentioned basic and inclusion criteria: the events have been significant (they've been significant enough for the FBI to put her under surveillance) AND the individual's role in relation to the events have been BOTH substantial AND well documented.
b) does not categorically rule out the inclusion of criminal accusations against a person - it only advises that editor's not include such material
4) WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not apply because she's not a victim but the accused perpetrator
5) WP:V does not apply because all of the sources which have been used in the article are reliable.
6) WP:CRIME does not apply because of WP:NCRIME which says that an article that documents phenomena that is deemed to be both notable and likely criminal/a crime should remain even if it has been subsequently established that no crime actually occurred as that finding would not diminish the notability of the phenomena. Specifically:
a) her acts were deemed illegal by U.S. law enforcement authorities (the FBI put Fang under surveillance and also notified Congress about her activities) - WP:NCRIME defines criminal acts to include those that have been suspected by law enforcement agencies as likely to have been committed.
b) U.S. law enforcement agencies deemed it likely that Fang's disappearance was caused by her criminal conduct (From Axios: "U.S. officials said China’s intelligence operation broke up in mid-2015 when Fang left the U.S. amid the FBI-led probe.") - WP:NCRIME makes it clear that this condition applies regardless of whether the perpetrator (in this case Fang) is identified or charged.
c) some of the victims of her criminal acts/crime are or have been important politicians, which the activities section of the article documents
d) Fang's criminal acts and the motivation for and execution of them have been sufficiently notable as evidenced by the article's satisfaction of the aformentioned basic and inclusion criteria
The "nature of Fang's activities" are being president of a student group (not a position of power), helping political campaigns, having sex and catching a plane to China. These are not what is meant by events. The rest are unproven suspicions. Fang is not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE: What is her real name? When and where was she born? What's she doing in the last 5 years? As the page main author you have included hearsay criminal accusations of espionage by the Axios website. This response presumes all Axios criminal suspicions are facts. FBI made no case. We must WP:AVOIDVICTIM of defamation, being investigated and leaks of sexual activity. Travelmite (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of your queries have already been addressed by my analysis. All of the phenomena you cited are events (what else do you call catching a plane to China?), she is notable for her involvement in all them (and more) and that is why §1 of BLP1E is invalidated: because she's notable for more than one event. Just because I don't know the minutiae of her biography does not then mean that she is not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not apply because she's not a victim but the accused perpetrator (as I had already said). Forevertruthsayer (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only event here is the investigative report from Axios and how additional sources added to it. Yes, there may have been multiple events in the past, but none of those were reported on before; it is only this discovery of the purported spying by Axios that is the event to be considered by BLP1E. --Masem (t) 03:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect and irrelevant. Incorrect because she is notable for both the disclosure of her purported spying AND the events she performed (actual and purported) on which the disclosure supervened - this explains the qualitative difference of the responses to the Axios report in comparison with other types of spying as demonstrated, for example, by the significant Congressional reactions to Fang's relationship to Swalwell. The fact that the events she was involved in wasn't reported on previously doesn't diminish the significance of those events in much the same way that you wouldn't say just because you didn't find out a person had committed murder, then that would have diminished the significance of the murder. Your explanation is also irrelevant because even if you were right about what the event was, your argument would still fail to satisfy WP:BLP1E because it fails to meet the stipulations in §3 as the event (disclosure of the purported spying according to you) was significant and Fang's role in relation to it was BOTH substantial and well documented. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your BLP1E analysis: §1 - the 1E is indeed the Axios report as the following coverage by other RS relies on that original report. §2 - being a campaign fundraiser or bundler (campaigning) does not make her a high profile person. She's drawing attention to the candidate not herself. If she's trying to draw attention to herself, she's not being a good alleged spy. This should also invalidate your defense against WP:SUSPECT §3 - the suspected role or activities are not actually confirmed or significant, only the event (the Axios report itself) is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wrt to your analysis of section 2a of my argument - this is incorrect. As I said: "she is notable for both the disclosure of her purported spying AND the events she performed (actual and purported) on which the disclosure supervened - this explains the qualitative difference of the responses to the Axios report in comparison with other types of spying as demonstrated, for example, by the significant Congressional reactions to Fang's relationship to Swalwell. The fact that the events she was involved in wasn't reported on previously doesn't diminish the significance of those events in much the same way that you wouldn't say just because you didn't find out a person had committed murder, then that would have diminished the significance of the murder."
2) Wrt to your analysis of section 2bi of my argument - this is incorrect and incomplete. Incorrect because she's drawing attention to both herself AND the candidate - it's not an either or proposition. She had to make a name for herself because that was a key part of at least two of her suspected M.O. (campaign financing and networking) - there's no contradiction between being a (suspected) spy and having a high profile such as a bundler (see the "How Fang rose to prominence among Bay Area politicos" section of the Axios article) And incomplete because you didn't address subsections 2bii-v of that section of my argument.
3) Wrt to your analysis of section 2c of my argument - this is illogical. Even if you were right about what the event was (disclosure of the purported spying) your argument would still fail to satisfy WP:BLP1E because the event has been significant (as demonstrated by the article's satisfaction of the aformentioned basic and inclusion criteria) and Fang's role in relation to it has been BOTH substantial AND well documented - the entire Axios investigations is about (you guessed it) Fang's role in the suspected spying operation. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify 3). The report itself is significant. However, the only thing that event/report confirms is that the intelligence community is suspicious of her and her activities. That she is a spy or her purported activities in furtherance of that role are not confirmed nor well documented beyond that one report. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG can't apply as the coverage only exists for 5 days (from Axios' Dec 10 article). GNG also looks for enduring coverage and we can't judge that yet. --Masem (t) 03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep it's not true to say she is only known for one event and that she's entitled to privacy. She is known for doing something (suspected illegal spying) which got her involved in doing an unlimited number of events and if people are saying the one event she is known for was the spying then that hardly makes any sense because spying isn't an event. As for privacy, she is not "entitled" to that when her name is already out there. Literally it is plastered on the news all over the world in all languages, everybody knows her now and all the people especially the men that got caught up in her honey potting are getting raked over the coals. Afalfafa (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Afalfafa (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This remark is a whole slew of supposition, particularly the "Swalwell will lose his job" (seat in Congress), when his seat is D+20 and he has never fell below 2/3 of the vote in a non-primary contest. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okay well there is a lot that is not accurate in your comment. I did not say Swalwell will lose his job i said he will probably lose his job and it is not really an unreasonble thing to say. just because his seat was rated as safe Democratic in the past does not mean it will be safe in the future. I made that prediction about his election future based on what i am seeing in terms of how Swalwell's colleagues in Congress and the common man is reacting and just going on that it looks like at a minimum this will be a godsend for his opponents because they are going to use this issue like a millstone around his neck. And i would appreciate it if you could please quit it already with the SPA accusation like just because i am new and i voted doesn't mean it counts as any less of a vote than people who have been here for a long time. yeah i know my vote makes it look like i'm an spa and it's not the greatest look but you gotta understand i wasn't the one who started this vote it was Travelmite who did. i would have prefered to have gotten more familiar with things on wikipedia before i voted, but as i have already voted and you've drawn attention to it, it is what it is i guess Afalfafa (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Afalfafa (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions to Wikipedia are welcome. I'm sure you'd agree it would be a catastrophe if Wikipedia became a political battlefield. The policies we are discussing protect Wikipedia, maintain it's academic integrity and prevent it from being accused of defamation. Travelmite (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BIO1E does not apply in this instance, since there was more than one politician involved. Easily passes WP:GNG as shown in Forevertruthsayer's analysis. Especially since the scandal just continues to grow. Onel5969TT me00:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The espionage is suspected. This reasoning presumes these suspicions are factual. Let the politicians or FBI prove these suspicions, if they can. Travelmite (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I read the article, this individual didn't commit any crime, was tracked by the government (who reportedly are tracking 2,000 other Chinese visa holders), was never convicted or even accused of a crime. I'm sure that the government has thousands of cases of people they deem "suspicious" who do not have bios here and I think this violates BLP and is more salacious than informative. The article's use of "relationship" implies a sexual or romantic connection without actually proving anything of that nature exists. LizRead!Talk!03:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, when I did a copyright analysis, it appears that some of the article was taken from the Axios article and statements simply have quotation marks put around them to make it not a violation. LizRead!Talk!03:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Axios report is interesting detail about China but not about Fang personally. Swallwell bit to date is just right-wing conspiracy theories. SPECIFICOtalk16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at 23,637 kb, it appears that the Fang article size is just too large to properly integrate into the List of Chinese spy cases in the United States article and I am skeptical that we can do the integration without gutting the most important parts of the primary article. The allegations involved here are quite serious and has also been covered quite extensively in the mainstream press. I think it does the wider community a disservice to try to cover this up in any way. BCEVERYWHERE (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — BCEVERYWHERE (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the FBI didn't charge Fang, the extensive article puts Fang on trial in absentia, because "the allegations involved here are quite serious" and to delete it would be to "cover this up" - demonstration of WP:NOT. Travelmite (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Maxim and Liz that BLP1E applies here, but I also want to challenge a lot fo the keep rationales. The GNG says that we presume a subject should be included but does not require that we include them. A discussion, like this one, may find that inclusion is against other policies. That is exactly what BLP1E and BLPCRIME further explain. Yes, the subject may have received widespread coverage for a single event, but that does not mean the person is what's notable. Out of a concern for privacy and the presumption of innocence, we should and do have a high bar for situations like these. I don't think that's been met, and so we should delete. — Wug·a·po·des20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see sections 2b, 3 and 6 of my argument. Privacy conerns do not apply because she is a public figure and the concern about her presumption of innocence (a high bar, to be sure) does not invalidate WP:NCRIME which would clearly advise that the documentation of Fang's activities (i.e. the main article) should remain if they have been deemed to be both notable and likely criminal/a crime (they have) even if (emphasis are mine) it has been subsequently established that Fang did not actually commit the crimes she was accused of. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that being a fundraiser or a Bundler (campaigning) makes her a public figure. Raising money by targeting specific communities like the Bay Area's asian voters on behalf of a political candidate does not mean that she's trying to draw attention to herself but to the candidate, and she is doing a shitty job with her suspected spying activities if otherwise. Section 6 does not require a standalone article outside of Swalwell. WP:NCRIME describes the notability of the suspected criminal act, while WP:CRIME discusses the notability of the alleged criminal. If your argument rests on NCRIME, then the article should be renamed to describe the case rather than the person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E. Also concur with Liz, and Morbidthoughts on renaming the article -- if the crime itself is worthy of its own article (which, at this point is still dubious) beyond trimmed down inclusion in Eric_Swalwell, it should be titled after the crime. I see no good argument here on why Fang should have a BLP here. Not to mention the glaring WP:BLPCRIME violation, given that Fang is obviously low profile and thus protected by BLPCRIME, and it appears she has not been convicted of any crime. So the very existence of this article is a BLP violation, and I see no way to remedy that at this period in time other than by deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E as all of the coverage pertains to the single event of her being suspected of wrongdoing originating in the December 2020 Axios article.Concerning the specific concerns with BLP1E#3, the suspected wrongdoing is not substantial and well-documented since it is unconfirmed suspicion based on a single source (the refs point to the original Axios source). No significant notability, with no coverage outside of recent suspicions; this is regardless of the existing major BLP violations, which are legitimate issues but may also be cleanup-related as some participants point out. — MarkH21talk05:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
UPDATE: Due to the repeated comments above that the current material in the article violates BLP1E, BLPCRIME and other BLP-grounded concerns, I have formally requested that the article be renamed from Christine Fang to Christine Fang spying accusations which should address those concerns as the subject matter of the proposed article is no longer about the person but about the person's activities (or the event as others have put it). Further votes for this AFD should take the rename request into consideration. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC) — Forevertruthsayer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that most sock-masters are in general affirmation seeking master-baiters, its best not to take the master’s bait even post-mortem in order to avoid pleasuring them yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing there which wouldn't be better covered on other pages, if the subject turns out to have a lasting significant of their own obviously we can and should revisit the subject but for today its a no from me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks quite notable. FBI gave Swalwell a "defensive briefing" in 2015, informing him that Fang was a suspected Chinese agent. Swalwell was one of many politicians who associated with Fang. She fled the United States in mid-2015 as she was being investigated. BTW, Elena Khusyaynova or Natalia Veselnitskaya are also notable only for one event. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Visas can be cancelled by authorities upon on any suspicion. If cancelled, that ends all future travel plans to anywhere. If asked, any consulate/embassy also would advise go home. I agree there are BLP issues with page Elena Khusyaynova -- go for it! Travelmite (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Elena Khusyaynova and Natalia Veselnitskaya were charged or indicted which isn't the case here. From what I've read, there are hundreds (or more) foreign visa holders to the U.S. who are monitored by security agencies. Considered that this woman was not charged with a crime, I don't see why she should be profiled on Wikipedia...we don't have bios on the hundreds of other people under U.S. surveillance. LizRead!Talk!20:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There can be exemptions from BLP1E particularly depending on an individual's role in the event. This can be quite hard to evaluate now (and in today's media circus in general) due to recentism etc. afaics it's not quite met currently. The larger, and less debatable, issue here is BLPCRIME, which cannot be remedied with this article's existence at this moment in time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
