Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bettina 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 redirect‎ to City Bureau. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Chang

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG thresholds for notability. Only one of the sources in the article might be a GNG source (see assessment table below), and I was not able to find any better sources myself. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table by Actualcpscm:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://medium.com/innsights/how-three-women-journalist-leaders-channeled-legacy-newsroom-experiences-into-creating-healthier-d788a935e385		WP:MEDIUM	~ Almost nothing except for direct quotations from her	✘ No
https://robertfeder.dailyherald.com/2019/05/10/powerful-women-chicago-journalism-2019-edition/	?	Personal blog		✘ No
https://www.taiwaneseamerican.org/next100/people/bettina-chang/	Interview	~		✘ No
https://niemanreports.org/articles/how-journalists-of-color-are-redefining-newsroom-culture/		~ Published in Opinion section, reliability unclear		~ Partial
https://www.ted.com/talks/bettina_chang_maslow_s_pyramid_fake_news_and_the_future_of_journalism		~		✘ No
https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/11/04/the-media-rumble-interview-bettina-chang-on-collaborative-journalism	Interview	~		✘ No
https://www.rcfp.org/awardsdinner2019/				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Illinois. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the source assessment table, nothing for notability. I can't find much else. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. The article now has 13 independent citations about the notability of Chang's work, including the Columbia Journalism Review, NiemanLab and Politico. I believe this shows that the subject meets the thresholds for notability. --Angshah (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to City Bureau for now based on available sources, WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST, and content that could be moved from her article. The 2019 Politico Magazine source has a focus on City Bureau, with some interview and observation of her at work; the 2016 CJR source and 2019 CJR source seem similar in focus on City Bureau with brief quotes from her; I think the Nieman Reports 2018 opinion source is independent, reliable, and secondary support for her notability, but usage in the article is limited by the WP:RSOPINION guideline; the 2019 RCFP award is shared with the other City Bureau founders, and the other cited accolades do not appear to contribute much to notability. Her notable work seems more effectively presented in the context of the City Bureau article; coverage in Politico, CFR, and Nieman Reports, as well as a Rising Star award from the RCFP does not seem to sufficient to establish City Bureau as a significant or well-known work nor a collective body of work per WP:JOURNALIST#3, and independent coverage of Chang in available sources, including based on my own search, seems too limited to develop a reasonably balanced biography at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my !vote to a redirect, because the City Bureau article seems to be a well-supported target and this would preserve the article history; if content is copied from this article, it can be attributed according to WP:COPYWITHIN. Beccaynr (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At bare minimum, merge into City Bureau, but my vote is for keep. I say this just having done a rewrite of the article — which can be checked out here ([1]) — and rearranged and better supported elements of the bio which could have been expressed more thoroughly from the works being cited, which was more from a general readability standpoint than a notability one. The idea that Chang isn't notable even despite the WP:GOOG-ness of it all is a little ridiculous to me. I'm not pulling a WP:CRYSTALBALL, not at all, because it's clear she already has jumped the hurdle for secondary coverage. I can understand not wanting to break out a joint accomplishment or project into an individual one, but just based on a cursory search, she's the mouthpiece of City Bureau, has been since it started, and is now the executive director. Personally, because she's a journalist of color in an executive and co-founder role for a remarkably successful nonprofit newsroom (that was the first of its kind [2]), I'm still a pretty strong keep. I'm a much stronger don't delete. ɯɐɔ 💬 04:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the things you mention are accepted thresholds or criteria for notability, though. A Google search for her name yields mostly pieces written by her, which are not appropriate for establishing notability, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to with that. Similarly, a high-level role in a „nonprofit newsroom“ doesn‘t necessarily indicate notability for our purposes. You mention that she has „already jumped the hurdle for secondary coverage“; what sources are you referring to here? It‘d be great if you could provide your WP:THREE. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 08:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep --Dunny (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.158.82 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an attempt at WP:HEYMANN Lets look at it.

Ref 1 is a passing mention.

Ref 5 states it edited by Betttina Chang

Ref 8 Is another passing mention.

Ref 9 Unable to see this properly on newspapers.com but seem from the size its another passing mention.

Ref 10 Another passing mention.

Ref 11 nothing here.

Ref 12 Nothing here either.

I removed reference 1 as its non-rs. An unreliable source. That is the first two references blocks covered. So in combination with the source analysis table above, it is plain to see there is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot. This is therefore delete. There is barely even a primary source. Chang is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG.MaskedSinger (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City Bureau as a plausible search term per WP:ATD. The subject is mentioned there. ✗plicit 00:07, 21 November 2023 (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.