Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portia Li

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. Sandstein 19:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Li

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia editors to expand the information on this article. The very best of regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep - Two reasons. 1) Li doesn't seem to me less notable than the huge number of NPR and BBC reporters who have Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because a journalist is published, doesn't make the journalist notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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. M.boli (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Taiwan. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject China. Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. I've left notes on the talk pages of WikiProjects Taiwan and China [2], [3], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note to administrator: Could you list this AfD in the Ethnic groups AfD discussion category? Bfpage |leave a message 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it, Bfpage, but you don't need to be an administrator to do it (I'm not). In future, just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact, click on your chosen category and follow the instructions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Journalists can be a bit tricky when you apply the usual notability tests, because they obviously get their names in the papers a whole lot. But looking at the sources on Li that are provided, there isn't much that is substantially about her in a source that is independent of her. Covering notable stories for the press does not make you yourself notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - I found sufficient sources to consider her notable, completely ignoring any merit based on her own publications. There's a Wall Street Journal article about her, significant quotes/interviews in Washington Post (via AP), Time, SF Gate, USA Today. Lesser quotes in SF Gate, New Republic, Asian Week. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that as Longevitydude stated below, that is a single WP:EVENT, which appears to have meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Sure it can verify the treatment of ethnic media journalist by Hillary Clinton for that event, but that doesn't mean that the subject of this AfD is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:Lasting, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Longevitydude (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon and RightCowLeftCoast:: Going through just those sources I linked above: WSJ July 31, 2001; Washington Post February 27, 2007; Time February 27, 2007; SF Gate February 27, 2007; USA Today March 17, 2015; SF Gate August 3, 2004; New Republic JULY 2, 2001; Asian Week MARCH 23, 2007. Publications from four different years over a 14-year period in multiple contexts. I'm afraid I don't understand any of these temporal delete arguments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ source is a single significant coverage reliable source where the subject was the primary source, that went on for more than two lengthy paragraphs, I acknowledged this before. However, the pieces which linked in Rhododendrites keep opinion are primarily about a single event, an event which received passing coverage in multiple reliable sources, but has not received persistent coverage since then. Therefore, a single event + a significant coverage piece in the WSJ does not make WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO IMHO. Now a second piece the length of the WSJ article, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (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.