Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang

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.

Christine Fang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

Non-factual suspicions in

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Yup, this bio article has gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BLP1E, BLPCRIME and lacking a prior public figure stance. The article only exists because Axios published this report which makes the assertion that Fang is a Chinese spy, which triggered several other media reports to see if they could see anything corroborating (this makes it a BLP1E issue). While this assertion may be true, that is not the same as an authoritative law agency making a sentencing or the like (the Axios report event has said the FBI has no comment on their investigative report). There may be factors of the Axios report to include elsewhere but there's no reason to have a separate article on the assertions that have yet to be proven out by law enforcement or in course for the person they are accusing. --Masem (t) 14:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As said above violates BLP1E. BJackJS talk 17:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I believe this is currently a BLP1E situation where there shouldn't be a standalone article. The 1E being the Axios report itself. All pertinent information can be put into the Swalwell article without necessarily naming her due to
  WP:SUSPECT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Just bring in RS from Eric Swallell Charles Juvon (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well reasoned argument of nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am persuaded by above mentioned reasons for inclusion in this project. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG can't apply as the coverage only exists for 5 days (from Axios' Dec 10 article). GNG also looks for enduring coverage and we can't judge that yet. --Masem (t) 03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how GNG works.
      WP:N only says brief bursts of coverage may not indicate notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep - The above analysis spells out very clearly why this article is suitable for inclusion and deletion is unnecessary. It may need a clean-and-watch in some ways but
  WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Aside - while the argument I cite was made by a socking sock who socked, the analysis itself is still, I believe, on point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BIO1E does not apply in this instance, since there was more than one politician involved. Easily passes
  WP:GNG as shown in Forevertruthsayer's analysis. Especially since the scandal just continues to grow. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The espionage is suspected. This reasoning presumes these suspicions are factual. Let the politicians or FBI prove these suspicions, if they can. Travelmite (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Based on sources in the article and strongly agree with the user Forevertruthsayer analysis. I have nothing to add all covered. Gharouni ^Talk 05:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I read the article, this individual didn't commit any crime, was tracked by the government (who reportedly are tracking 2,000 other Chinese visa holders), was never convicted or even accused of a crime. I'm sure that the government has thousands of cases of people they deem "suspicious" who do not have bios here and I think this violates
  BLP and is more salacious than informative. The article's use of "relationship" implies a sexual or romantic connection without actually proving anything of that nature exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Plus, when I did a copyright analysis, it appears that some of the article was taken from the Axios article and statements simply have quotation marks put around them to make it not a violation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, we should consider removing her from other articles like List of Chinese spy cases in the United States#Christine Fang. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Axios report is interesting detail about China but not about Fang personally. Swallwell bit to date is just right-wing conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per most of the other keepsSeven Pandas (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless all the suspicious issues are clarified and dismissed KPX8 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the opposite of how Wikipedia works. Please read

  WP:BLP SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete I agree with Maxim and Liz that BLP1E applies here, but I also want to challenge a lot fo the keep rationales. The GNG says that we presume a subject should be included but does not require that we include them. A discussion, like this one, may find that inclusion is against other policies. That is exactly what BLP1E and BLPCRIME further explain. Yes, the subject may have received widespread coverage for a single event, but that does not mean the person is what's notable. Out of a concern for privacy and the presumption of innocence, we should and do have a high bar for situations like these. I don't think that's been met, and so we should delete. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears she has an article for something suspected to have happened but not confirmed. For that, I don’t see notability. Trillfendi (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP1E. Also concur with Liz, and Morbidthoughts on renaming the article -- if the crime itself is worthy of its own article (which, at this point is still dubious) beyond trimmed down inclusion in
  low profile and thus protected by BLPCRIME, and it appears she has not been convicted of any crime. So the very existence of this article is a BLP violation, and I see no way to remedy that at this period in time other than by deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: BLP1E as all of the coverage pertains to the single event of her being suspected of wrongdoing originating in the December 2020 Axios article.
  Concerning the specific concerns with BLP1E#3, the suspected wrongdoing is not substantial and well-documented since it is unconfirmed suspicion based on a single source (the refs point to the original Axios source). No significant notability, with no coverage outside of recent suspicions; this is regardless of the existing major BLP violations, which are legitimate issues but may also be cleanup-related as some participants point out. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BLP1E, at BEST, User:Forevertruthsayer's unconvincing attempt at spinning it otherwise notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Waskerton: & his many sockpuppets. How pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I was considering tagging those with SPA a few days ago but the slightly diverse editing interest made me think "eh, AGF". Guess the gut is always right. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:GRAVEDANCING. As the saying goes two pathetics do not a civility make, or something like that. Be the bigger person. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I've no sympathy for sock-masters. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that most sock-masters are in general affirmation seeking master-baiters, its best not to take the master’s bait even post-mortem in order to avoid pleasuring them yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear example of
  talk 02:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, I see nothing there which wouldn't be better covered on other pages, if the subject turns out to have a lasting significant of their own obviously we can and should revisit the subject but for today its a no from me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks quite notable. FBI gave Swalwell a "defensive briefing" in 2015, informing him that Fang was a suspected Chinese agent. Swalwell was one of many politicians who associated with Fang. She fled the United States in mid-2015 as she was being investigated. BTW, Elena Khusyaynova or Natalia Veselnitskaya are also notable only for one event. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fled?? Please don't make allegations or insinuations that are not contained in mainstream RS reports. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Or, to be more precise, she abruptly left the United States in mid-2015 as she was being investigated. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Visas can be cancelled by authorities upon on any suspicion. If cancelled, that ends all future travel plans to anywhere. If asked, any consulate/embassy also would advise go home. I agree there are BLP issues with page Elena Khusyaynova -- go for it! Travelmite (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Both Elena Khusyaynova and Natalia Veselnitskaya were charged or indicted which isn't the case here. From what I've read, there are hundreds (or more) foreign visa holders to the U.S. who are monitored by security agencies. Considered that this woman was not charged with a crime, I don't see why she should be profiled on Wikipedia...we don't have bios on the hundreds of other people under U.S. surveillance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There can be exemptions from BLP1E particularly depending on an individual's role in the event. This can be quite hard to evaluate now (and in today's media circus in general) due to recentism etc. afaics it's not quite met currently. The larger, and less debatable, issue here is BLPCRIME, which cannot be remedied with this article's existence at this moment in time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tabloidish notability for a fleeting event. ValarianB (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Wikipedia is not a tabloid. This should have been speedy deleted at the start of this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete And frankly a coordinated effort by probably a state-backed actor, this was not a recreational troll. Albertaont (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2020 (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.