Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chang

Jennifer Chang

Jennifer Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Notability not established and Autobiographical. There is only one source (two listed but one is a broken link) to an article where the subject gets a trivial mention. This Wikipedia article's main contributor appears to be a family member who has removed a prior proposal for deletion. There was also a speedy deletion nomination which was rejected. LittleOldMe (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Update - The article creator, and primary contributor, has fixed the broken link to the source. However, this news story also contains a trivial mention of the subject. LittleOldMe (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a girl (or is that unacceptable? substitute woman or lady at your preference) doing a job. The two sources are trivial - one refers to her doing street interviews and the other to her being on the traffic reports team. I append below this a collection of SpA fans found on the talk page here, and I transfer their comments in the interest of fairness. They are very similar and I wonder how independent they are... Peridon (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(Transferred comments)

Jennifer Chang has been reporting for several years for CBS News/Radio, also does TV pieces for Areum Broadcasting and pursues news and features for a wide range of other organizations. She is a highly knowledgeable observer and analyst of events on the Korean peninsula, ranging from the North-South confrontation to South Korean politics to social and economic problems. She is well known in Seoul for her work as a journalist and thus recommended for listing in Wikipedia. Nambok Lee (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Chang is an internationally renowned broadcast reporter who has extensive knowledge of the politics and culture of various nations, and her reporting is therefore a great help to her audiences when it comes to their understanding of news events. As a big fan of her reports, which are always objective and accurate, I object to any deletion of the article about her in Wikipedia and vote for her to stay listed in Wikipedia. Gloria Oh (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Chang is a world-famous broadcast journalist who does great reporting. She loves her jobs and through her passion for her work, she is able to reveal the truth about complex news stories to her audiences succinctly and clearly. In my opinion, a deletion of the Wikipedia article about her is uncalled for, and she deserves to have an article about her in Wikipedia. Hyekyung Park (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Chang has the spirit of a truly great radio and television news reporter. She is also famed for her strong friendships with other reporters across the globe. I always look forward to a new report from her because she just keeps getting better and better at her craft with time. She has a strong fan base and clearly is qualified to have a listing in Wikipedia. I vote against any deletion of her Wikipedia article and cast my ballot in favor of keeping an article about her in Wikipedia. Kijeong Kim (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been a fan of Jennifer Chang for a long time. She has extensive experience in radio and TV reporting on Asia, especially North Korea and South Korea, which I have found to be extremely useful when it comes to understanding news issues in that continent. Her coverage is invaluable to millions of listeners and viewers worldwide who depend on her reporting for a clear understanding of news happening in that part of the world. She is a broadcast journalist the world cannot do without and her listing should not be removed from Wikipedia. I reommend that the article about her that is now in Wikipedia be kept the way it is. Jisuk Oh (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(End of transferred comments)

• Comment to New Posters This is not a ballot - the !votes keep or delete are only a guide to others reading the discussion and are not actually counted. Arguments for keeping or deleting should be on the basis of Wikipedia standards and not on your personal opinion. Also, if there is use of multiple accounts, this can lead to blocking from editing. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I was unable to find any sources for this reporter. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is absurd to assume that the many different people who have voiced their opinions on this page that Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia article should be maintained and not done away with are not independent of each other. It is also unfair to try to delete the article about Jennifer Chang, which has been included in Wikipedia for five months, and which was approved for inclusion in Wikipedia by a Wikipedia administrator. The article obviously had sufficient sources in that administrator's opinion, otherwise he or she would not have approved it for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's highly inappropriate to start attacking someone else's Wikipedia article which has already been approved by an administrator. I ask that this deletion discussion be stopped immediately! Wikipedia has set rules on which articles should be included in Wikipedia. Those set rules were followed in posting the article on Jennifer Chang at the Wikipedia Web site. Whoever is trying to delete this article is obviously breaking those rules, and saying that the Wikipedia administrator who approved the article on Jennifer Chang for inclusion in Wikipedia did not know what he or she was doing. Seongok Chung (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the explanations that a vote is not going to take place to decide whether Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia article should be kept or deleted are not needed. Everyone who has left an opinion on this page obviously just wants to make clear his or her opinion on whether the article on Jennifer Chang should be included in Wikipedia. Just because they used the word "vote" or "ballot" does not mean they think each opinion posted at this page is going to carry equal weight. So far, there are six opinions in favor of keeping Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia article the way it is, including mine, and only three opinions that support deleting it. But I'm not saying this discussion is a vote. Seongok Chung (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have no idea where Seongok Ching gets his claim that 6 people have !voted to keep the article, since he is the only on to do so. Edward321 (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nambok Lee, Gloria Oh, Hyekyung Park, Kijeong Kim, Jisuk Oh and myself have all expressed opinions on this page that the article on Jennifer Chang should remain in Wikipedia and not be removed. So it is fair to say six people have voted for the inclusion of that article in Wikipedia. Also, I don't understand how it is possible for people who are not administrators to go against an administrator's decision to include an article in Wikipedia like this. If Wikipedia administrators' decisions don't matter, why have Wikipedia administrators in the first place? This whole deletion discussion has been opened by people who hold Wikipedia administrators in contempt! Seongok Chung (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just cannot believe that a deletion discussion is still going on about the Wikipedia article on Jennifer Chang. Wikipedia administrators clearly established Jennifer Chang's notability when approving the posting of her article in Wikipedia. It's obvious they also determined that her Wikipedia bio was objectively written, and not in any way autobiographical. After all, Wikipedia administrators officially approved her Wikipedia listing in April and have never had any objections to it remaining in Wikipedia since then. How then can these Wikipedia users continue to carry out this discussion with the aim of deleting her Wikipedia bio after it has been part of the Wikipedia Web site for the last five months? They have no respect whatsoever for Wikipedia administrators and think they know the rules governing which biographical articles should be allowed at the Wikipedia Web site better than Wikipedia administrators. They are rebelling against all that Wikipedia stands for and have no regard for Wikipedia administrators. Their opening of this deletion discussion is a disgrace to Wikipedia and an outright violation of Wikipedia policy. How can Wikipedia maintain order if Wikipedia users rebel like this against Wikipedia administrators who are supposed to have the final say on which biographical articles can be posted at the Wikipedia Web site? Sunghee Hong (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note Regarding my restoration of this article, that was procedural only. The article had been deleted because it the original author apparently requested deletion by blanking the page. The article creator since emailed OTRS and made clear that was not her intent, so I restored the article. However, under the circumstances the article is still subject to Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion process, a slower and more deliberative process where members of the community discuss whether to delete an article for more complex reasons. So this discussion is perfectly appropriate. Here the primary issue is the notability of the subject. So whether the article is deleted or not depends on whether it meets Wikipedia's standard for the notability of individuals. For those opposing deletion, your comments will carry more weight if you make reference to why you think Ms. Chang is notable under that guideline. To that end, Ms. Chang has supplied several additional sources via email. See below.--Chaser (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Chang emailed several sources to OTRS that may affect this discussion. The sources are in Korean, but she has graciously provided English translations, which I am excerpting:

• Seoul Shinmun article: When listening to TBS, one can encounter with a voice of fluent English, like that of a native speaker, telling about Seoul’s traffic conditions. Yet, the announcer does not pronounce proper nouns like Hannamdaegyo, Yeoksamdong or Namdaemun awkwardly. The announcers are Jennifer Chang, ... of TBS English broadcasting team. . . . Chang and Lee are overseas Korean with American and Canadian citizenship, respectively . . . Then, what is their recommendation for Seoul drivers? “Drunk driving is the same as committing suicide. Please do not drive when drunk, but use a designated driver. Even half a glass of beer is dangerous.” (Jennifer Chang)
• An article from the Esquire, Korean edition (email me for the jpeg image of the article): Jennifer Chang translated for KBS and AFKN . . . They all work in the same place, but the team presents diverse fun to listeners through unique broadcasting comments. Jennifer Chang, who thinks teamwork is most important, says that she feels that her work is worthwhile when people show appreciation for getting necessary information and remember her voice.
• This article from Women-net.net (Google translation is OK). It has considerably more coverage of Ms. Chang. Google incorrectly translates her last name as "chapter". I do not know anything about the source, Women-net.net. Update: Since I posted this, Ms. Chang has emailed me that: "Women.net is the online magazine of the South Korean Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the agency of South Korea's national government that is in charge of promoting equal rights for women. This online magazine has a section featuring articles that offer in-depth coverage of South Korea's women leaders who are the most successful women in South Korea in their respective fields. The article about me in Women.net which you have posted in the deletion discussion surrounding my Wikipedia bio is part of that section in Women.net on women leaders." In addition, Ms. Chang has provided a translation of the article and the comments at the end; please email me if you would like that translation. For copyright reasons, I cannot post it on-wiki.--Chaser (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot post the full translations of the first two on Wikipedia for copyright reasons, but please email me if you would like them. They are much better than Google's.--Chaser (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am still convinced that she's just someone doing a job. And I would say to the new accounts, please do not come in here telling us how things run. "I ask that this deletion discussion be stopped immediately!" - You're not the first to say something like that, and you are unlikely to be the last. It doesn't work. Not like that. You obviously didn't take in my comment about !voting. Note - ! voting. This is our way of saying it's NOT a ballot vote, but a comment. It's the article itself and the discussion that counts. No admin has 'authorised' this article being on Wikipedia - but an admin will decide whether or not it stays. There are some fairly grand looking claims in the article - but they are not referenced. All that is referenced is traffic announcements - which is hardly top flight journalism. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You obviously do not know how Wikipedia works. An administrator posted the article on Jennifer Chang at the Wikipedia Web site five months ago because there was no opposition to it, thus authorizing it. Yet you and two other Wikipedia users are trying to get this article deleted now, five months later, when no one has ever opposed the article since the time it was posted. Until now, your argument has been that the administrator restored the article after it was deleted due to opposition from Wikipedia users. That just shows how little you know about Wikipedia's rules. You have slandered that administrator as well as this article by saying that. There has never been any opposition from Wikipedia users to this article and you three Wikipedia users are the first people to attack this article and the administrator who posted it. I know perfectly well that you have the right to keep this deletion discussion up for seven days. So I am not trying to cast an equal vote by asking that you stop this deletion discussion. I am just asking you to stop this groundless attack on an article that has already been approved for Wikipedia by an administrator. If you look at the article featuring Jennifer Chang as one of South Korea's top women leaders from Wo-men, the online magazine of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the South Korean national government's organ that handles women's issues, you'll see that all of her Wikipedia bio is well-referenced, not just the part that deals with her years as an English reporter at TBS, where she reported not just traffic, but news as well, as many fans of hers in Seoul like me know. Seongok Chung (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am neither slandering nor libelling (as this is in writing) anybody. I had not done anything about this article previously because I did not know it existed until it came to AfD. As to knowing nothing, I think that with close to 10,000 edits in many different areas (AfD, SPI, copy-ed, translation, CSD, reviewing and more), I probably know more than you about how this place works. Quite often in Afd we find people posting as you are doing. It doesn't help your case at all, believe me. And also believe me, I prefer to have an article saved if it is worth saving. (I've managed to stop some deletions in various different ways.) Instead of ranting, please listen to what we are telling you. No article is 'authorised' be an administrator. Articles are posted - some for review and there just posted. They can then be subject to deletion be an admin, or to nomination for deletion (again, the deletion can only be done by an admin). Anyone can post - only admins can delete. In certain areas, edits by new accounts or IPs are held until reviewed by an editor with 'reviewer' status. (I have that status even though I don't have the icon up on my userpage.) As the article stands, there are unreferenced claims to notability. If these are referenced properly, I would have no worries about reviewing my position. (I have changed opinion more than once in the course of discussions.) We are actually willing to help you even though we are being ranted at. Peridon (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion that this article has not been authorised is groundless. Administrators reflect the opinions of the Wikipedia community, which includes you and me. So in that sense, they do authorize Wikipedia articles when they post them. Administrators do not independently post articles at the Wikipedia Web site. The administrator who initially posted this article on Jennifer Chang included it in Wikipedia because it had been authorized by the whole Wikipedia community in the sense that no one from that community raised any objections to it. Please do not try to deny that fact! Seongok Chung (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, you show deep disrespect and contempt toward opinions from other people who are not Wikipedia users. I asked you to look at the Women.net article on Jennifer Chang. Yet you haven't even read it and still continue to assert that Jennifer Chang's notability is unreferenced in her Wikipedia bio. Seongok Chung (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've tried. Some people just won't be helped. Peridon (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in these personal attacks against me, why don't you read the Women.net article on Jennifer Chang and try to rebut that? After all, this deletion discussion on Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio is supposed to be based on the references that have been submitted to support that bio. I'm surprised that as a Wikipedia user, you don't seem to know this! Seongok Chung (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read it. No change here. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have a closed mind that is not open to being changed. Every aspect of Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio is referenced by that Women.net article, including her reporting on North and South Korea for CBS Radio News, the U.S. network. And yet you continue to insist that the only part of her bio that is referenced is the reporting she did on traffic in the past for a Korean radio station! Seongok Chung (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not every TV reporter is notable. How many people report for CBS or for the BBC? Are they all notable? The Women.net article is not referred to in the article. It is quoted here in AfD. Apart from which, are you trying to tell me that I may not hold an opinion that differs from yours? Peridon (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think every CBS or BBC reporter wants to be in Wikipedia? Also, even if some of them do want to be listed in Wikipedia, they may not have adequate sources to be listed there. You clearly know little about Wikipedia's policy. A deletion discussion is not supposed to be held with the aim of deleting someone else's Wikipedia bio, which is clearly your goal. A deletion discussion is supposed to be held to see if there are any additional sources that can be used to back up the Wikipedia bio it discusses so a fair decision can be reached by a Wikipedia administrator on whether that bio should be included in Wikipedia. Yet you refuse to consider the references that have been submitted by Jennifer Chang and have been posted at this deletion discussion by a Wikipedia administrator. You are supposed to give as much weight to the sources, articles and references that have been submitted at this deletion discussion as you do to the original sources and external links that were initially submitted five months ago to support Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio. Yet you insist on ignoring the additional sources that have been submitted at this deletion discussion. Sources that have been submitted here were not submitted five months ago, when the Wikipedia article on Jennifer Chang was posted, because no one in the Wikipedia community has ever objected to the inclusion of that article in Wikipedia until this deletion discussion was started by a few Wikipedia users, and a Wikipedia administrator approved that article's posting in Wikipedia at the time. And now that a deletion discussion is demanding that more sources be submitted to back up Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio, you refuse to even consider the sources that have been submitted by Jennifer Chang to comply with the demand for more sources to back up her bio that has been made by this deletion discussion! Seongok Chung (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Chang has emailed me the following: "A major South Korean monthly magazine named "삶과 꿈" ("Life and Dream" in English), which is noted for its high-quality articles, is scheduled to include an article about me by November 2010 at the latest. Also, a South Korean newspaper is slated to cover me soon in an article that it will run sometime in the near future. And I may also be able to provide at least one more source other than these two articles for my Wikipedia bio soon."--Chaser (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

By posting a link to the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" section of the Wikipedia Web site directly above these comments of mine, the Wikipedia user Peridon is saying that the Wikipedia administrator should not have mentioned that Jennifer Chang is going to submit several articles about her to Wikipedia that are going to be published in the near future. But that is not a valid argument. And I really wish Peridon would stop attacking Wikipedia administrators like this. Jennifer Chang obviously was not expecting the article in Wikipedia about her to be attacked like this and is trying to get together more sources to back up her Wikipedia bio. Just because those additional sources come out more than seven days after this deletion discussion started does not mean they should not be considered by the Wikipedia community. This deletion discussion should not be closed before all the additional sources she plans to submit have been posted at this deletion discussion. The user Peridon just wants to get Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio deleted. But that is not the policy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy is to consider all available sources and to let the Wikipedia administrator judge whether the article they support merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Eunice Kim (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no objections to the article coming back when it's got the necessary. I have nothing against Ms Chang herself - I'd never heard of her before this, and probably won't hear of her again. If you put some of your energy into finding suitable refs, and added them to the article, I would be prepared to reconsider my position. I have done so before on a number of occasions. When people who have only just started to edit here (and whose account has only edited this AfD) accuse me of "attacking Wikipedia administrators like this", I feel that there is nothing out there to add at present. Any administrator who feels I have attacked him/her is well able to deal with the matter themselves. The article may survive now. If it does, I won't be bothered by that. If it doesn't, bring it back with what's needed. I have helped several people get their articles into shape and will help more. They are ones who asked for help and advice. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that that's another account posting. Whatever. The style is the same. "And I really wish" suggests someone who has been involved with this. Hi, Eunice. You've fitted in quickly. Don't forget it was me that copied the five comments from the talk page to this one - would I do that if I was hell-bent on denying a place in the Wiki to Ms Chang? Peridon (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't post "directly above these comments" as they weren't there then. I posted directly underneath Chaser's post. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't know my comments would follow your comments and you posted directly beneath the Wikipedia administrator Chaser's post. I was just trying to describe the location of your comments for the benefit of other Wikipedia users and administrators who will view this deletion discussion. Also, I wish you would not make groundless accusations against me when I am just one of the many fans of Jennifer Chang who have been outraged by this attack on her Wikipedia bio in the form of a deletion discussion. But I am glad you are willing to consider all the sources she wants to submit to support her Wikipedia bio. I'm sure you're a good person and you will try to form a fair opinion about whether Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio should be retained after viewing all the sources she submits to reference that bio. Also, I appreciate your moving of the user comments in this deletion discussion to be fair. I hope you help Jennifer Chang find a way to keep her bio posted in Wikipedia. Your help would be invaluable to her. Eunice Kim (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Nice that she is a working reporter, but that does not automatically satisfy WP:BIO. I would like to see more independent and reliable sources with significant coverage to satisfy the applicable notability guidelines. This AFD also seems to have a flock of single purpose accounts arguing for keeping the article. Edison (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Userify pending sources I've come here at Chaser's request on WP:AN/I. None of the regular Wikipedia editors or administrators commenting here think it our role to help anyone to get their bio in Wikipedia, or to prevent anyone from getting their bio here. Our role is to help Wikipedia contain bios of notable people, and to help the readers by seeing that Wikipedia does not contain bios of people who do not reasonably belong in an encyclopedia. (Our responsibility to the subjects of articles is to make as certain as we can that erroneous or defamatory or other inappropriate things are not said about them.) Decisions are made here by the community, and, though an admin closes the discussion, they do so according to established community standards. With this in mind, let me evaluate the article based on the material presented. The subject is a radio announcer; radio announcers unfortunately do not get much written about them, and it's pretty difficult to show that someone in this profession is notable. A reporter for a local station is almost certainly not notable, though I've seen exceptions; her station, though a CBS affiliate, is a local station, albeit in a very large city; she does not broadcast on a national network. It is asserted in the article that she is a also a reporter of Korean news for the CBS network in general, and it's asserted she has covered some very important stories. This is to some extent supported by what I can decipher of the Women.net article. Unfortunately that source is essentially what she herself has said during an interview. The sources mentioned as forthcoming sound promising, but we can not keep an article on the basis of what is not yet published. What we can do is transfer it as a draft to userspace, so sources can be added. I hope they will be truly independent sources, and not based on public relations. The general course of this discussion implies to me that their objectivity cannot be assumed, but they will need to be translated and analyzed. When they are added, I would suggest that restoration be requested at Deletion Review, rather than just simply restored as meeting the problems raised here. The reason I am saying this is the intensity of the advocacy for the article. Assuming good faith, they represent --as one of them stated above--her fans. Though everyone can edit, and everyone's opinion is welcome, we decide on the basis of policy. not popularity. Additionally, the repetitiousness of one of the supporters in insisting on what he has been repeatedly told is an incorrect criterion concerns me considerably--I admit to a certain feeling of wanting to reject the article on the basis of the poor argument for it, and the methods of argumentation used, but that's not fair. Many notable people have unreasonable fans and supporters. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Well said. Edison (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. the blatant pushing by single purpose editors is an indicator of conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to the comments above, Jennifer Chang is not a reporter at a local affiliate of CBS Radio. Her reports are aired throughout CBS Radio News, which is a national network that airs news all over the U.S. Also, all articles about notable people are based at least in part on interviews with them, so the Women.net article is entirely valid. Aside from which, the author of the Women.net article is not writing the article purely based on her interview with Jennifer Chang, but her research and knowledge of Jennifer Chang as well. As for the single-purpose editors argument, as long as the sources used to back up Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio are not notorious for having single purpose editors, then I don't see how you can assume any sources she submits in the future were written by single-purpose editors. There is no evidence backing these arguments against Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia biography. And it must be very discouraging to Jennifer Chang that such baseless arguments can be posted here. She is probably thinking that no matter how many sources are submitted to back her Wikipedia bio, some Wikipedia user is going to come out with some invalid argument against it that has no basis in fact, so there is no point in submitting more sources to reference that bio. If you want to be so blind to the truth, why don't you just tell her she has no chance of being listed in Wikipedia instead of making her go to all the effort of submitting more sources when you're not even going to consider them? The Women.net article should have been plenty to prove that her Wikipedia bio should stay listed. And another thing I'd like to add is that many of Jennifer Chang's colleagues who also report for CBS Radio News are listed in Wikipedia, and many of her radio announcer friends have Wikipedia bios as well. Kilo Hahm (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Chang has never been a reporter with a CBS Radio News affiliate. I think DGG is confusing TBS, a big radio station in Seoul, Korea where Jennifer Chang once worked as a reporter, with a CBS Radio News affiliate. I'm sure DGG has his reasons for arguing that he can't be sure Jennifer Chang is a reporter with CBS Radio News, the U.S. network. But if he wants to be sure she is a reporter with that network, there is an easy way for him to do that. He can call CBS Radio News's headquarters in New York City and ask them if Jennifer Chang is a reporter with CBS Radio News, and I wish he would. Gigyeong Hong (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability has not been established according to WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. A search of "CBS Radio News" and "jennifer chang" resulted in nil reliable sources. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Respectfully recommend deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Restore. Cindamuse should bother to call CBS Radio News, the US network, to establish that Jennifer Chang is a reporter at CBS Radio News, instead of merely relying on the Internet. Also, the external link at Jennifer Chang's bio is a two-way Jennifer Chang did for CBS Radio News. Why doesn't Cindamuse go to the external link and listen to the two-way? Then she will have no doubt that Jennifer Chang is a CBS Radio News reporter. In the two-way, an anchor at the CBS Radio News affiliate in New Orleans interviews Jennifer Chang about former US president Bill Clinton's visit to North Korea to free Laura Ling and Euna Lee, calling her "CBS's reporter in Seoul, Korea." The description of Jennifer Chang in text at the Internet site where that two-way was posted also says "CBS Reporter Jennifer Chang." It's clear that all Cindamuse wants to do is delete Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio without being fair. Sunghae Lee (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Restore. Jennifer Chang is obviously a reporter with CBS Radio News. Anyone who calls CBS Radio News can verify that. And Jennifer Chang has provided more than enough evidence to support her Wikipedia bio and prove her notability. Eunice Kim (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Restore. Jennifer Chang's Wikipedia bio should be maintained. It has been attacked without any justifiable cause using the most ridiculous arguments, including that the opinions of users with new accounts are "single-purpose" users. We're editors, too. Just because you've made more edits than us outside this topic does not make your argument any stronger. This deletion discussion is supposed to be judged on the basis of Wikipedia's guidelines, not how many edits the Wikipedia users who posted comments in this deletion discussion have made. Gloria Oh (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)