Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Fang (3rd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Fang

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

The only third-party sources give trivial coverage, which per WP:SIGCOV means it isn't notable. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Editors beware the third nomination! But, really, there should a rule about bringing up an AfD so soon after the last one has failed to win over minds. In fact, the more we improve the article, the more this is becoming an exercise in futility. I will grant you that Fang is ABSOLUTELY DESPISED by his opponents but that SHOULD NEVER be an issue here! At least, the nominator, who was a participant in the last nomination, is trying to improve his argumentation from his previous attempt to point out fault with WP:BASIC and failed. Fang is, in fact, getting more and more coverage about his reporting: See this one-on-one interview with Thom Hartmann, who is RT host of the "Big Picture". RT The Big Picture YouTube channel, part one and The Big Picture, part two (May 6, 2013) aptly called "Conversations with Great Minds"! The same source interviews Lee Fang about his allegation of how a conservative organization roughed up him and another reporter while reporting, ALEC v. Lee Fang in 2011.

This is what I said before and this what i'll say again: "Per WP:SIGCOV The subject is the source for a good number of other journalists and reputable sources, such as NPR, MSNBC, etc., and he does count as a expert under notability standards of WP:Author: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I have added some sources for traditional, non-partisan media. His articles have attracted widespread attention among the political press and not for just one event. I disagree that he fails to meet WP:BASIC both on the number of citations and the fact that the policy allows for primary sources if notability does not hang on them, which is the case here. Enough secondary sources do discuss his reporting. Moreover, if you include coverage from the U.S. alternative press on both the right and the left, then the source without a doubt has been given enough coverage."Crtew (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAGAIN. And for notability the sources have to be third-party. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of WP:NOTAGAIN and you have every right to keep bringing this up, and I have every right to continue arguing policy to keep! Crtew (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be policy then to suggest that you give it time although I assume good faith: And just so we both know that you read the same policy: " Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it."!!! Crtew (talk)

It was closed due to no consensu both times. Don't argue consenus when the sysops say there is none. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd nomination was made less than a month ago and it was closed days ago. That's not time for anything to have changed by any standard of expectation. Crtew (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't argue consensus. If you read closely: comma and then or .... that means either ... or ... Crtew (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the second time in a month! This nomination seems rather pointy, given that the previous one just closed and nothing has changed. No new information is presented in this nomination, so the arguments remain the same. No valid reason for deletion is demonstrated. The article is about an author that writes for several highly notable publications, and whose work and person have been discussed by notable publications. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2013 (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.