Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Mang

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Mang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Grace Mang (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)

This article should be considered for deletion for the following reasons:

1) The article is a resume, not an encyclopaedia entry. The subject is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. The article likely meets two criteria for speedy deletion, namely:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

"Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. It should be noted that "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. See Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION for the policy on this.


A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)

Further information: Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[5] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works.

The only evidence that the subject is important is that they gave evidence at The United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. This is not remarkable.

2) Other article contains unsubstantiated claims that are used as evidence to justify the subject's importance.

For example, this un-cited section, which insinuates that the subject is responsible for influencing the behaviour of Sinohydro and changing industry standards: "Mang, with International Rivers, was previously instrumental in getting the world's largest dam builder, Sinohydro, to setcorporate social responsibility targets for their worldwide dam projects for the first time, in effect setting a new standard for the industry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factwiki1000 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 April 2014‎ (UTC) — FactWiki1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete Fails to meet notability requirements. She is sometimes quoted in the media as a lobbyist/spokesperson[1] but there are no biographical details or detailed analysis of her work. Being quoted as an acknowledged expert helps to establish notability per WP:PROF but being quoted as a spokesperson does not. To write an article we need relilable sources about her, not just a few quotes. She's written some articles in the media e.g.[2] but in itself that doesn't establish notability. I'm not sure if A7 applies: there are mid-level bureaucratic roles and publications. But she does not meet the higher notability standards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails general notability requirments, just being quoted in the media is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete widely quoted, but articles are not about her LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — LucyLucyLucyLucy1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep in fact meets the notability requirements because of citation in multiple independent secondary sources, as well as being a (cited) subject of an in-depth biographic interview on China Radio International. Also because the example "un-cited" section (referred above) is in fact cited, and also because the achieved environmental policy change in one of the world's largest dam builders is some notable and major impact. Article should be edited so as to make it less of a resume as well as more relevant, and forms the basis of a solid reference for people interested in the field of corporate environmental lobbying.107.150.37.178 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)TenThousandMen — 107.150.37.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No impact on scholarship seen. No pass of WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Passes WP:GNG reliable, sources, independent of subject, e.g. CRI, Reuters, BBC but fails "significant coverage". Perhaps one notable achievement (Sinohydro CSR) is not enough, especially when the sources there are primary. No obvious merge target. 92.251.255.12 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grace_Mang&oldid=1071171055"