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 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Andy Kim (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable political staffer and candidate. Does not pass WP:GNG as few sources discuss him, and the ones that do do so in the context of a political campaign, where the election is the subject. Does not pass WP:NPOL as merely a candidate for higher office. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. -- RaviC ( talk) 18:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Just like everyone else, he can get an article if and when he wins. Marquardtika ( talk) 22:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete une;lected canidates for office are not notable, there is nothing about Kim that makes him an exception to this rule. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018; the article is promotional in addition to all the other concerns already mentioned. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018 There are candidates who are independently notable, but Kim is not at that point based on the sources in the article and available elsewhere. Alansohn ( talk) 14:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete and/or redirect. As always, every candidate in every district is not automatically notable just for having his name on the ballot — he has to win the election in November to be deemed notable as a politician, and qualifies for an article before that only if he can either (a) show and reliably source credible evidence that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he was a candidate (such as having already held another notable office, or meeting the required notability standard for his prior career), or (b) he can show that his campaign coverage has gone so far beyond everybody else's campaign coverage that he has a credible claim to being special. But neither of those conditions is true here. This can be recreated in November if he wins, since his notability claim will have changed from candidate to officeholder, but nothing here is enough to deem him already notable today. Bearcat ( talk) 16:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the article above and merge any reasonable information into it, as per usual. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NPOL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Redirect. He's not automatically notable for having his name on the ballot, he's notable because there's a new story about him in a major publication every week. Just found him again in the Washington Post. ^[1] If the fact that most mentions are in the context of the election means it's not noteworthy enough to have a page, it should redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. Lebanonman19 ( talk) 15:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

There's always a news story about every damn candidate in the entire United States every week. And having his name mentioned in a news story doesn't automatically assist in building his notability, either — he has to be the subject of a piece of coverage before it assists in demonstrating notability, not just a person whose name happens to show up in coverage of something else. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC) reply

He is the subject of almost every article cited on his page. Lebanonman19 ( talk) 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Coverage which exists specifically in the context of an election campaign does not assist in building the notability of a person who wasn't already notable for other reasons before becoming a candidate, because that type of coverage always exists for every candidate in every election at the federal and state and municipal levels. So the only sources that count as potential notability builders here are the ones that exist outside the context of the campaign itself, and all of the sources that exist outside the campaign context here, such as #9 "At war over Obama's new war in Iraq", are mere namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things. For campaign coverage to contribute notability in and of itself, it would have to be shown that he's getting so much more campaign coverage than everybody else is that he would have a credible claim to being special — candidates are not automatically deemed notable enough for encyclopedia articles just because some campaign coverage exists, because there's no candidate for whom some campaign coverage ever doesn't exist. Bearcat ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018. Most candidates for elected office are notable only in the context of their election. Any relevant information about the campaign can be added to the election page (and I do think that there is usually room for expansion in the appropriate election article to describe the candidate and their main [reliably sourced] campaign themes). -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect since he is only notable for being a candidate, but there is a shot he'll win come November, and why waste this start? ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 17:40, 18 July 2018 (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.