Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecilia Chang

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. Courcelles 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Chang

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

One event, coatrack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a clear violation of our policies on biographies of living people. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a gossip site. Stories such as this need to be handled with great care and sensitivity. We don't do articles about people accused but not convicted of crimes unless the incident has received significant ongoing coverage in multiple independent reliable sources above what would normally be devoted in the news media to alleged criminal activity. See WP:PERP for this policy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. --Juno the pregnant little girl (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. She has received national and international coverage, but the coverage does not seem to be ongoing. I don't buy that this is a WP:COATRACK, and I would be willing to revisit this if or when there are more developments. Location (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:BLP1E. Ray^Talk 21:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure if it should be kept or not. I have been following this news story. As a dean and professor, she barely ranks as a notable academic. I would agree to later re-creation if it is deleted, per Location, and gains traction. This was a classic front-page story. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Not Delete I am the first writer of the Cecilia article. I see several opinions on the article. I have some questions before I agree on the delete. First, by comparing Mag Whitman article, the Cecilia article seems more fit to the Wikipedia rule on living people. I want to see which sections is violated. Second, it is not a gossip. It is a criminal case involving FBI on prestigious school in liberal art and law faculty. This seems like the first time incident in the US, especially, for the foreign students. We see how the society has reacted on Toyota brake system problem in the US teritory. There is a similar incident; Meg Whitman's Latina housekeeper. The allegation is involved firing not even treating bad like a slave, and it has been an important event in the 2010 election. In the Meg case, there was apparently no mistreat or wrong doing, but the status of the defender (foreigner) leads various reactions in the community. I consider Cecilia's arrest is an interantional issue related to status in the US and distortion in social and econmical levels (class) at this moment. The main difference in the Cecilia's case is the vitims' identities are still concealed. I think this is one of reason not to bring different communities actions. Third, I agree that she is not noticed figure until the arrest, but as I notice on the St. John's editing history, there were long arguments and exchanges on adding Cecilia's information. Finally, it was not allowed. I do not know reason behind it. I think now she is well known figure in the US and over the sea, especially in Asia. Until I hear the clear explanation, I cannot agree on the action. I think this article should be kept until her trial finished.Woonhocho (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Cullen328. Note Woonhocho is the creator of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Woonhocho, the additional information you provide does not justify keeping the article. Meg Whitman was indisputably notable as an eBay executive long before she ran for governor of California, which itself would have made her notable. The Whitman housekeeper incident is a relatively minor part of her biography. This arrest is the sum total of the claimed notability of Cecilia Chang. This information simply does not belong in Wikipedia at this time, according to our long established policies and guidelines. She is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Cullen328, I have two comments on your opinion. First, the Meg housekeeper incident is not the minor part of her biography. The event apparently leads the surge of Latino vote in California. It is well known the gap between two candidate was not wide and Latino vote was around 20% in total count. It was a major impact. You may need to read the research, fact and news. Second, this arrest looks like the sum total of the claimed notability of Cecilia Chang at this moment because there is no other information about her in the Wikipedia. This will be improved by adding facts and news about her by other users in the Wikipedia and Internet. This action can be possible only when the basic article about Cecilia exists in the Wikipedia. For this reason, the article should be kept. As you know, Meg's housekeeper case is not finished yet. Now, I have a question to Cullen328, which section in our (or your) long established policies and guidelines are violated? I could not see them. Woonhocho (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read his opening comment where he referenced WP:BLP and WP:PERP? Location (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Location repeated the most applicable policies, and I recommend that you read them both carefully, Woonhocho. As for the facts about Meg Whitman, her biography is now 31 paragraphs in length, and there is just one long paragraph about this controversy. See the third paragraph of WP:UNDUE. As for the role of this matter in that campaign, Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman 55.5% to 43.3%, a decisive victory. He was ahead in a big majority of the polls in the last two months of the race, and the poll numbers didn't change significantly after this particular news broke. The comparison of Meg Whitman to Cecilia Chang is not useful in this AfD debate. Cullen328 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Location and Cullen328, I read the both sections. For the first one, WP:BLP; overall, my article is neutral point of view, verifiability by news papers and the New York court record, and it is not original researchand. For the second one, WP:PERP, I see only the Perpetrators section could be applied in this article. Please, let me defend one by one. First, section 1. - She was the college dean and Asian female. Not many Asian females have that positions. Section 2. - Please, pay attention the sentense of "not limited". Section 3. - Her action is considered noteworthy and her coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources (The New York Times) that devote significant attention to the individual's role (Again she was the dean of St. John's College). Last, there is note, and it says that editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured - As my article is written, she is under investigation of FBI, and her lawyer's defending comment is "the government should not specify the type of labor". Doesn't he admit tha Cecilia done what the deputy officers accused? As Cullen328 indicated, I see the third paragraph, and it clearly says "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to" Doesn't my article need more information to be added by the time? Regarding Meg, before the event was exposed, the gap was 2% and sampling error was 4%. It means that she could be favored to be elected. After one week of the accident and followed debate, the gap became widen, and your number is the final voting result. Would you expose your source on the information? One more about the length of paragraph, the length does not value the importance of event. Meg just has large information on her article.Woonhocho (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators wake up! This artcle may be defamatory and should be speedy deleted to avoid affecting the outcome of any legal case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think Xxanthippe needs to open your eyes and ears. Xxanthipee, are you one of interest groups in the Cecilia case? The article dose not affect outcome. The US legal system is not that bad. We can talk openly, honestly, and find the truth by gathering information, which will be shown in the Cecilia article of the Wikipedia. That is the power of opened information, Internet.Woonhocho (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Xxanthippe is spot-on. This article is a WP:ATTACK, speedily-deletable under G10. Should be disposed of quickly, especially since there is a pending legal case. Admins please take a look ASAP. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Woonhocho reads policies but does not really seem to understand them. Any adminstrator, please delete ASAP. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, specify which sections are violated. The two areas, WP:BLP and WP:PERP, include wide range of characteristics. Cecilia article has only five sentenses, so it probably does not take a long time to comment each one. Or you may pinpoint what are not acceptable on my previous defending comments. Woonhocho (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woonhocho, we keep going over this, which is OK, but the policies are clear.WP:PERP says, "Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." Cecilia Chang has not been convicted. WP:BLP says that BLPs must be written conservatively and with regards to the subject's privacy. Cecilia Change is entitled to her privacy, at least until a conviction is obtained. The subsection WP:BLP1E is applicable to this article. Please note that there was a spate of press coverage from mid-September to early October, which has now died down. I haven't found any in-depth or ongoing analysis of the case, but just a slew of articles immediately following her arrest and bail arrangements. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. The allegations are well-sourced, so I don't know that this demands speedy deletion, but it's not very encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Cecilia could belong to the BIO1E violation, but I think that the article does not have general information, such as education, policy, career and etc, yet. As I wrote upper comment. I expect the article will have more than one event by other contributors. For the NOTSCNDAL section, I have a different opinion; the arrest is close to ethical violations, fraud and misleading government officials. The four subsetions under the Scandal is not showing the detail of this charge.Woonhocho (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2010 (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.