- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Kathryn Xian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Naked advertising. Subject fails POLITICIAN. Article was previously deleted per G-11 but has reappeared in substantially the same form and wording. Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Kathryn Xian an accomplished human rights activist in Hawaii. The fact that she is running for Congress doesn't diminish her human rights contributions. Obviously, not all Wiki articles created for people who decide to run for office are automatically "naked advertising." In fact, this article significantly and deliberately downplays Xian's congressional run in order to remain non-commercial. Her congressional run and the fact that she's the first openly gay person to run for Congress from Hawai'i are notable historical facts, in my view. If you see things differently, please explain why. Thanks! Fracpol ( talk) 01:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please see WP:POL. The community has consistently set a high bar for articles about unelected persons seeking public office. Further this article is one of the more brazen campaign adds masquerading as an encyclopedic article that I have seen on Wikipedia. It has already been speedy deleted once. The only reason I sent it here instead of another G-11 CSD is so we can get a more definitive ruling that will hopefully make it a bit more difficult to recreate. Of course if Ms. Xian wins the election she would then satisfy the criteria for inclusion. Best regards - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- According to the relatively few sources I can find about her thus far, she isn't even a formal candidate for Congress yet — as of yesterday, she was still just a candidate in the party primary to become the party's candidate in the congressional election. Being on the ballot in the general election wouldn't, in and of itself, be sufficient basis to deem her as having passed WP:POLITICIAN — and being a candidate in a primary is even weaker as a claim of notability. And while her activism as described in the article is certainly admirable, it's all pretty local in nature and import, and would not be sufficient to qualify her for a Wikipedia article by itself, either. She'll qualify for an article if she wins the election in November, certainly — but there isn't sufficiently strong evidence of notability here as things currently stand. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. Bearcat ( talk) 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete It's nice that she is an activist for worthy causes, but our standard for inclusion here is WP:GNG. That basically requires coverage, namely, significant coverage about her from independent reliable sources. She is mentioned here and there by local news media (primarily by alternative media, rather than mainstream media like the TV stations and the Star-Advertiser). She is such a long shot in that seven-person primary race that pollsters don't even include her name when they take a poll. [1] At this time she is simply not notable as Wikipedia defines it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Question Is this Xian the director referred to [2], [3] She appears to be so. [4]. There's a very small but non-zero number of references to it at paywalled journal articles. The article may need work, but I'd imagine those sources, plus the ones already in the article, meet WP:BASIC, and unless someone wants to dispute that this is the same Xian, I'd suggest keep. -- j⚛e decker talk 20:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- The first reference appears to be a very short blurb in a magazine that I would question whether it meets standards for reliability and independence. The second two I can't access in their entirety but what I can see appears to be trivial. Sources that are behind a paywall may be reliable and verifiable but if they are going to be cited as evidence of notability someone should state as such clearly, and explain what the sources are claiming. (See WP:BURDEN.) I am not seeing that. But much more important is that the article clearly fails WP:NOT as it is a naked political advertisement that has already been speedy deleted once on that basis. Even if a credible argument existed for notability, which I would strongly contest at this point, this article would have to pretty much be completely rewritten to eliminate the naked bias and advertising. NOT is policy and it trumps Notability. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Subject is the third place candidate for the seat being vacated by Colleen Hanabusa, if she wins the primary election on August 9th then she would warrant an article, but not yet by a long shot. She is barely notable locally much less to the degree that would warrant a Wikipedia article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 12:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually she needs to win the general election to merit an article under POLITICIAN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- More evidence for deletion, everything I find show her as a mid-level manager of a few non-notable charities. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 00:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Relisting as no one has addressed Joe's sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.