Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicia Tang (2nd nomination)

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 keep. If she was non-notable before, she's not suddenly notable because of her death. However, although there was little wrong with the first AfD - the article at that point contained very little claim to notability - the improved article does, even without the additional coverage related to her death. Black Kite 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Tang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Felicia Tang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted without objection for failure to meet the GNG and relevant specific notability guidelines. After the article was deleted, the subject was killed in a domestic violence incident. Being a victim of domestic violence does not confer notability, and no other new information has been added to indicate the subject might be otherwise notable. WP:NOTNEWS clearly controls. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and close. She was notable enough to be included in the Deaths in 2009 section. The article was sourced this time; this is obviously a bad faith nomination.SPNic (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy Keep Multiple, independent sources at the article. I'll try to format it better later. The subject might have been a borderline case before-- and therefore should have been Kept. Appears to have been dominated by the Deletion-brigade. But, much to their chagrin, easily passes "notability" now. Re-nomination by the same nominator looks very much like the petulant act of a sore loser. Dekkappai (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the combination of her being a porn star, a now famous victim and passing WP:NOTABILITY. Multiple very reliable sources refer to her as a "star." Re-nominating an article for deletion within the same month of a previous AfD and right after the person's notability has increased seems disruptive.--Oakshade (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The only disruption here is from SPNic, who recreated the article after it was deleted without objection. He/she should have taken the dispute to deletion review, but instead chose to recreate the article without any sourcing except for the domestic violence killing, which is by wide consensus nowhere near enough to establish notability, but with uncivil and dishonest personal attacks. And she wasn't a porn "star" by any reasonable use of the term; the standard reference sites have her in no more than a handful of softcore films. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
  • Well then, perhaps you can provide an example of a discussion here where news reports identifying someone in passing as a "porn star" was considered reliable-source evidence of notability. As you may or may not be aware, the term has been deprecated on Wikipedia (replaced by pornographic actor) because its common use inaccurately implies notability or significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are editors here, not authorities. Whatever a discussion of self-important jackasses here says is totally irrelevant when reliable sources in the real world say something else. This subject has reliable, international sourcing. The article stays. Period. Dekkappai (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I DID take the article to deletion review first, and it's still at the bottom of this page! Neither the nominator nor anybody else paid attention, except for Dekkaappai, who suggested I redo the article myself.SPNic (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I saw the article-creator's request to recreate the article, and since it got no response-- and still has not got a response-- I recommended he not waste time with the bureaucracy. In the original spirit of Wikipedia, I suggested he just write the article and post it. I have done this myself with other articles in the past, in similar situations-- a "consensus" of two deletion-minded editors have deleted a notable subject, and I've then taken the time they did not to find sourcing and write a decent article. If we now have to wait for permission from rule-makers to start articles on subjects with multiple, reliable sources, then this is a victory for Wikipedia as Bureaucracy, and the death of Wikipedia as "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Dekkappai (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woo -- woooooo! <throws confetti mentally, celebrating this small symbolic victory> ↜Just M E here , now 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two different inadequate reasons for notability do not make one good reason. The murder was the sort of murder we consider trivial; the earlier career, ditto, accepting the earlier verdict on that. That newspeople pay attention to this when they wouldn't otherwise is the basis of tabloid journalism, and the reason for NOT TABLOID. Re-creating it, though, was not the least disruptive-- the older article was significantly supplemented with new material, and therefore an new AfD is appropriate. Only if it were substantially the same article would it have been problematic. If it had been taken to Deletion Review, the inevitable decision would have been: recreate, and another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with DGG. Both of the reasons given for notability cannot sustain the article on their own and cannot do so in combination. Her career as a porn star seems to be short and unremarkable and doesn't meet any of the suggested guidelines at WP:PEOPLE. As for her death, it is a fleeting news item that will be lost and forgotten by the passage of time. Shadow007 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: KTLA News, Pasadena Star-News, CBS News, Los Angeles Times (2 articles), Kompas (the most widely read newspaper in Indonesia), Italian news, Dutch news, Chinese news, more Chinese news, ... But what do they know? It's not "notable" if we Wikipedia editorsauthorities say so. Dekkappai (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is right, being the victim of domestic violence does not confer notability. But being the subject of non-trivial third-party coverage does. Extensive coverage in reliable sources is what Wikipedia:Notability is all about. faithless (speak) 08:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per Faith. Extensive coverage in news media. Including Australian sites (SMH is Sydney's highest circulated newspaper) : http://www.smh.com.au/world/australian-porn-star-tortured-and-killed-20090929-gabz.html

Stextc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being in multiple films, magazines and porn sites is multiple events. The "L" in "BLP" stands for "living."--Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're multiple non-notable events. The rationale behind WP:BLP1E also applies to deceased people. Epbr123 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale behind WP:BLP1E is the protection of privacy for "low profile" (quote from WP:BLP1E, no myself) living individuals who through no fault of their own ended up briefly being high profile. Someone who willingly performs in multiple internationally released films is in no manner "low profile." --Oakshade (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E does override WP:GNG. This woman is the subject of multiple, notable, reliable coverage in international news sources. Easily passes "notability." Dekkappai (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, WP:BLP1E overrides WP:GNG. BLP1E is policy, while GNG is a guideline. There wouldn't be any point having BLP1E if it didn't override GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks for pointing that out. There's the crux of the problem then. We have Wikipedia editors overriding real-world authorities. Where in the real world does it say one cannot be "notable" for one event? Nowhere. GNG gives authority to real-world authorities. BLP1E to amateur article-writers, or deleters. Dekkappai (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks also for pointing out that Wikipedia's definition of "Living" also includes "Dead". Oddly enough, I'm not surprised at all. Dekkappai (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't. If you actually read WP:BLP1E, and understand the concept behind it, you should see that what it says also applies to deceased people. If you have a problem with the word living being in the header, see WP:BIO1E instead. Epbr123 (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to keep per Morbidthoughts. Passes PORNBIO criteria 5. Epbr123 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite this seeming to be a WP:BIO1E article, it seems like a decent biography was derived from the substantial coverage of that 1 event. Also, I will give the article the benefit of the doubt in passing criteria 5 of PORNBIO as reliable sources have verified that she's been in multiple mainstream productions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it can be said that she passes criteria 5 of PORNBIO. She has featured in multiple mainstream media publications regarding one event only. I consider that criteria 5 refers to featuring in mainstream media in respect of multiple events. Shadow007 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is debatable as to whether having an uncredited role (not listed on IMDb, for example) in mainstream films qualifies as "featuring" in mainstream media. Shadow007 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncredited roles do actually count towards passing criteria 5. Morbidthoughts and I were two of the main contributers to the PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that she is a porn star has nothing to do with anything. The problem is that this is essentially a news story and we have no idea yet wether or not it is going to have any lasting notability outside of the current news cycle (it happened less than a month ago). Wikipedia is not a news service, which is why WP:Notability says :"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Now I could see this event becoming notable in the future because it is a great candidate for a made for TV movie or a true crime book, but trying to predict future notability is prohibited. So right now with the sources you have this would be fine for Wikinews but not Wikipedia.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wide coverage in Southern California print, media and online sources as well as being noted internationally with many describing her as a "porn star". If "reliable" sources use the term, they think she is notable (a star is a star...) - reliable doesn't have to equal accurate, or something with which we agree - we have to accept what they say or it's OR and lots of other bad acronyms. And BTW Hullabaloo, "porn star" wasn't deprecated to favor the ungrammatical "pornographic actor" which I objected to but the much more proper "pornographic film actor".Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A decent biography was derived from the coverage - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A 'decent biography' does not confer notability. It is the content of the biography that is the issue. Shadow007 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think that is correct. The problem is the nature of sources of that content. All of it is from fairly routine news reports filed in the last month or so. That makes this article basically a news story, and as such it is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to multiple US reliable sources, and the Australian, Indonesian, Italian, Dutch, and Chinese reliable sources noted above, let's include Argentina. So that makes, what? Five continents? But I suppose Wikipolicy says it's just a run-of-the-mill local news story until it hits Antarctica too? Dekkappai (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further: The reason she is covered in world-wide sources, of course-- as MorbidThoughts pointed out above, and as mentioned in the article-- is that the subject is notable. She appeared in several high-profile venues, such as Playboy TV, her internet site was popular, she made multiple mainstream appearances. As such, she passes WP's "notability" criteria under WP:PORNBIO #5. Dekkappai (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per faithless. Tabercil (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what WP:FANCRUFT says about notable pop culture subjects covered in reliable sources. ↜Just M E here , now 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per so many above. Even prior to her death she was well known enough to be considered notable, despite the naysayers of the Deletionist school. -- SilverWings (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See that 'L' in BLP1E? That tells me that it doesn't apply to Ms. Tang. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could anyone else wishing to comment please read WP:NOTNEWS first? Only one keep voter so far has tried to counter the main argument for deletion. Epbr123 (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Morbid's pointing out the multiple mainstream appearances should settles the BLP1E concern, as well as NOTNEWS, I would think. As far as NOTNEWS in particular, reading through it just now, I don't see how it applies here at all. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Nope. "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event..." The coverage does go beyond the context of a single event, or our own article would not be able to cover the subject's entire life and career, as it does. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information..." The subject's death is only one small paragraph, followed by a memorial statement by the family. Seems perfectly "appropriate" within the context of an article on the subject's life as a whole, and un-emphasized to me... Dekkappai (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coverage does not go beyond the context of a single event. All the coverage is primarily about her murder. If she was notable, she would have received coverage before this single event. A decent biography may have been compiled from the news coverage, but the same could be done for any murder victim or anyone else that comes under BLP1E/BIO1E/NOTNEWS. Epbr123 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course the coverage goes beyond the single event. The articles are about her death, but they go into detail about her notable career in softcore venues, mainstream appearances, Internet site, etc. If she were simply a victim of domestic violence, as claimed in the nomination, this evidence of notability would not have been brought into each article on her death. Also, her death would not have made reliable news sources in five continents, that we know of. Dekkappai (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should be clear the subject fails WP:PORNBIO; the only criterion from that guideline she might meet is #5, being "featured multiple times in mainstream media," but there's no verifiable sourcing for the claim that she appeared in mainstream films predating her death -- instead, the most that can be said is that she may have appeared as an uncredited extra in several mainstream films. Those are not the sort of appearances that #5 addresses; that's why the article was deleted without objection a few weeks before her death. The same is true for the claims that she appeared in Playboy videos -- there's no reliable evidence presented that she had roles as anything but an extra, if she had any roles at all. As for BLP1E/BIO1E/NOTNEWS issues, when we compare similar events generating significantly more news coverage -- the Jasmine Fiore and Annie Le killings -- the extensive coverage hasn't been deemed sufficient to make the victims individually notable. The editing and verification of the article text is clearly below Wikipedia standards -- for example, the subject's name has now been rendered "Felicia Tang Lee," in spite of the fact that there's zero reliable evidence that this was either her legal name or a name form the subject ever used -- instead, it's based on an obvious misreading of its supposed "reference." The claim that the subject appeared on the "Ali G" show is entirely unsupported by evidence, reliably sourced or otherwise; the only basis for including it in the article seems to be an editor's claim that "think I read it somewhere, can't find it right now" -- a perfect example of things that shouldn't be included in any Wikpedia article, especially a biography. WP:RS cautions editors to take care not to include material, even from otherwise reliable news organizations, which may be sourced, directly or indirectly, from Wikipedia (including mirror sites); what has happened with the article subject here is that news organizations, faced with a breaking story regarding an obscure figure, have used the best sources available to them, primarily mirrors of the Wikipedia article -- and therefore those news reports can't be reliable sources for the Wikipedia article they're based on. It's also worth noting that the more responsible news organizations have been careful to indicate that some of the information in their articles has been impossible to verify -- for example, one of the CBS articles points out that the subject's supposed mainstream credits are presented only "according to her Web site"; one of the LA Times articles used a reference similarly notes that the source for its report of mainstream credit is "a resume posted on her website." Wikipedia articles should be based on information verified by reliable sources, not information which reliable sources report they have not been able to verify. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was previously deleted because a couple of Deletion regulars voted delete, and no one bothered to counter the pro-Deletion bias set up in the AfD system. I did not add the Ali G line. Another editor did, and since I recall reading it also myself, and because I AGFed, and because it is far from a controversial statement, I merely tagged that for a "fact". The Deletion nominator, in contrast, has repeatedly tagged the entire article for Ref-improve despite its meticulous sourcing to multiple reliable sources. The nominator, without evidence, repeatedly claims these reliable sources were based on Wikipedia's article, yet continued edit-warring the "ref-improve" tag in even after it was shown that the subject's official biography supported these sources as early as 2002, as the nominator points out, this is stated in the sources themselves-- those he simultaneously accuses of cribbing from Wikipedia-- and all this is easily verifiable by readers due to the sourcing in the article. Dekkappai (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been a couple of interesting questions raised by this discussion. They are can news coverage that would not itself establish notability (because of WP:NOTNEWS) be used to estabish notability by meeting the "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" of WP:PORNBIO? Similarly can material such as promotional material and appearances in adult entertainment media that would not normally establish notability per WP:PORNSTAR establish the notability of a figure who has appeared in a burst of news stories about a single event (in this case a murder) that would not normally pass NOTNEWS? I stand by my earlier delete vote, because I don't think you should be allowed to work the notability requirements against one another in this way. I suspect in a little while the point will becomce mute, because as I said earlier I am sure in few months their will be a true crimes book or made for TV movie that will establish notability, but that shouldn't be allowed to affect this debate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable through her television work. I'm not sure how many of her films were notable, if any. She did appear briefly in several major films though. Her overall career seems enough to establish notability. Her horrible death got plenty of news coverage, but even without that, I'd still say she was notable because of her career. Dream Focus 03:59, 5 October 2009 (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/Felicia_Tang_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1074097022"