Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilma Pang (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 July 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Pang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable local politician in San Francisco. She might, in time, become notable but not yet - clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and IMHO WP:GNG as well despite one lurid event in her career. I tried to redirect the article to San Francisco mayoral election, 2011 but this was contested so here we are at AfD. I'd be happy with either a deletion or a redirect. andy (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) andy (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable only for election scandal. BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Redirect as suggested by Andy. (I would favor the redirect, that way the article can be recreated with its history intact if she becomes more notable later.) "Scandal" is too broad a word IMO, but the controversy over her campaign contributions was the only thing that garnered any press at all. That coverage amounted to one article in the San Francisco Chronicle, on which this page is largely based. Notability calls for significant coverage in MULTIPLE sources, which is not satisfied here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are bazillion sources, more than enough to meet WP:GNG. It does fail WP:POLITICIAN, but if it meets WP:GNG we don't even get to WP:POLITICIAN, which is only for those who fail GNG but are indeed notable under POLITICIAN. --Cerejota (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "bazillion sources" (actually 47, not all of them Reliable Sources) are mostly passing mentions - mostly in connection with her unsuccessful runs for office. They are not "significant" coverage as required for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If 47 sources spread over a period of years are not significant coverage, what is "significant coverage", then? The question is not rhetorical, the closing admin will have to answer it convincingly either way s/he closes. Certainly most of the press coverage is related to running for office, but htta is inmaterial, a person can meet GNG as a political figure while not meeting WP:POLITICIAN - which is the case of nearly all third party candidates in the USA, or with members of political fringe/extremist groups. However, looking only at news ignores other sources. I think in this case quantity acquires a quality of its own. --Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as suggested above. I, too, mildly prefer the redirect. (For the record, the article creator, the nominator in the first Afd, and the IP opposing the redirect are the same sock. Go figure!) Location (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems no one bothered to click on the links to possible sources at the top of this page. This woman has been mentioned in various published books and has significant press from diverse sources including the Bay Area Reporter (multiple mentions), numerous and regular mention in the San Francisco Chronicle from 2004-present, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Examiner, Asian Week (numerous mentions), San Jose Mercury News, Sierra Sun, KTVU San Francisco (Fox News), Fog City Journal (numerous mentions), and KGO San Francisco (ABC News). This is a notable topic on a subject with significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.164.148.90 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — 184.164.148.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has issues, including focus on a a small scale controversy rather than subject, but is not mostly known for the scandal - I support moving material of the scandal to the mayoral race article and link form that to this article. Plenty of academic and reliable news sources back notability as a musician, an academic, and an aspiring politician. She is certainly more notable than almost anyone in Pornographic film actors, with a fe notable (har-har) exceptions. This is an easy keep under WP:GNG, and there are multiple sources galore. AfD is not to fix quality issues. --Cerejota (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: fails WP:POLITICIAN, minimal WP:RS coverage, of very limited geographical scope (with some rather unreliable sources prominently cited in the article) does not suggest the WP:GNG is met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you change your opinion if significant changes happen to the article? I agree that as it stands it is badly done for a BLP, but I think it warrants fixup, not deletion...--Cerejota (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the changes demonstrated "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", then yes. If it were simply 'rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship', then no. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not how the article is written, it is notability. But if you can make her notability clearer by rewriting and adding references, go ahead. I will re-look at it with an open mind. --MelanieN (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue is notability, which is not expressed in the article, because I totally see it GNG. Am working on it.--Cerejota (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you do understand the issue, based upon edits to date. Student newspapers and internet television channels really don't cut it as sources for a BLP, nor does an apparent complete lack of coverage from beyond San Francisco. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to who ever started the IRC rumor I was a sock puppet of the article creator, check yer head. To begin with, I live in NYC, not the west coast, and am previously totally un-involved in this drama I just found out about. Also I have been around teh wikis for a very long time, generally well-behaved. And just because a puppet made it, don't mean it has no value or is not worth trying ARSing it.--Cerejota (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage of the ethics issues makes it notable for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but does it make it notable for wikipedia? It would help if you could relate this to guidelines. andy (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read WP:POLITICIAN. She clearly meets it. In addition to that, she doesn't just get cover for her race for mayor. You see additional coverage as they quote her as an expert on Chinese related things. [1] [2] Dream Focus 09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe YOU should read WP:POLITICIAN. It grants notability to:
*Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
*Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
*Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
*In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.[13]
Bottom line, she does NOT qualify under WP:POLITICIAN; however she might qualify under WP:GNG, if her press coverage is found to be significant enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." She meets that just fine. Dream Focus 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? That paragraph discusses "mayors of cities" and "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city". How does that apply to her? As far as I can tell she's never held any elected office anywhere. andy (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's actually a minor local political figure - not a major figure as in that policy - but the bottom line remains the requirement for "significant press coverage". That's not unique to WP:POLITICIAN - it's the requirement for any individual, per WP:BIO, unless a guideline like WP:POLITICIAN grants an exception (as for example a state legislator). --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that she meets WP:POLITICIAN, because she is not a major political figure, but a minor one. She does, however, meet WP:GNG for coverage in multiple reliable sources, and exceeds WP:BLP requirement on being notable for more than one event, as she is notable in a few fields and for more than one event, and WP:VANITY and WP:ADVERTISING in that uninvolved editors are making a good faith effort to bring the article to at least start quality. Her notability is marginal, but notability has long been understood to be a pass/fail not a grey area, and she is firmly in "pass" due to significant WP:RS coverage. Protestations in this regards sound to me like WP:IDONTKNOWIT than a serious examination of sources taken as a whole. THis is not a GA review, this in an AfD, and we do need a quality article, we need a notable one.--Cerejota (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you back to MelanieN's earlier comments about your "bazillion" reliable sources that prove GNG. They're not substantial, they're not all reliable, and they prove nothing. In fact, if that's all there is about her on the web then it actually shows that she's not notable! andy (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. It doesn't say elected political officials. You are major if you get ample coverage, not just the office you hold. You can be a political figure even if you don't run for any office at all. Dream Focus 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article for political figure [3] but it now redirects to politician which explains you don't have to be elected to be a politician. Dream Focus 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, but you said "significant press coverage". Please give some specific examples that add up to significance because I can't see them and neither can other editors. All we can see is a rather small number of rentaquotes, peripheral mentions and so on. andy (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And other editors do see the significant press coverage - and provided it. You see "peripheral mentions" and "rentaquotes", we see evidence of a notable person in a major metropolitan area with significant enough notability within one of the largest Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking communities in the US. Tens of thousands of votes in at least one election, multiple quotes in the media on unrelated matters, significant mention in journals focusing on cultural work, all of these measure up to notability. I offer that not seeing her as notable is an indication of unconscious systemic bias at work - notability is relative to the topic and no one here claims that she is a world-wide leader in a field, so the notability is marginal. But notability is pass/fail, and she passes. --Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, you have worked hard on this article trying to establish notability, and I promised to look at the revised article with an open mind. I have done so - but I'm afraid it still doesn't add up. The references are either not significantly about her, or they are from fringe/nonreliable/non-independent sources. (Example, the Guardsman, which is the college paper at the campus where she teaches.) She still has only one SIGNIFICANT article from a SIGNIFICANT source, namely. the SF Chronicle piece about her campaign funding. The requirement for significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources has not been met. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2011 (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.