Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Min


 * 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 California's 45th congressional district. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dave Min

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The relevant notability standards here would be either WP:NPOL or WP:PROF, and I don't think he meets either one. Congressional candidates aren't notable for their candidacy alone, and I'm not seeing PROF here either. Marquardtika (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to California's 45th congressional district. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Such redirects should be and very often have been standard practice for biographies of unelected political candidates. This biography was created a few weeks after he declared his candidacy in an obvious effort to promote that candidacy. All of the independent sources were published after he became a candidate and are mostly routine local articles much like every single serious Congressional candidate receives. Such biographies are targets for disruptive political operatives, both paid and volunteer. This article has been edited by a paid staffer of a rival campaign. There are well over 1000 Congressional candidates in the upcoming U.S. elections and tens of thousands more in state level elections. If we open that floodgate, we will  be fighting ten thousand battles simultaneously. These candidates should be covered, briefly, in balanced articles about individual political races that treat all candidates neutrally. If Min wins his race for Congress, the biography should be recreated then. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I tried to redirect this article and was reverted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Cullen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have little doubt that the article was created for promotional purposes, and it's seen more than its fair share of COI editing. However the article has been largely cleaned up, and there's no reason to blow it up now based on things that happened in the past. Future disruption can be dealt with. Regarding notability, there are more than enough reliable sources to easily satisfy our general notability guideline. We have the LA Times, NBC News, Roll Call, OC Weekly, the OC Register, the Korean Times, all mostly about Min. And those are just the sources that are currently cited after a deep cull of the promotional content. Heck, the guy also received a paragraph and a photo in The NY Times. WP:POLITICIAN is explicit that candidates for office can be notable "if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" WP:BASIC is also explicit that WP:POLITICIAN is merely an additional avenue to establish notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Cullen. If the page must remain, I recommend it be locked until after the election as it has proven a tempting target for Min supporters to add re-hosted promotional material as flattering sources. BrittonBurdick (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BrittonBurdick has been identified by Cullen328 as an employee of a rival campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true and I added that disclaimer to the relevant article's talk page. There have already been multiple edits from Min's team attempting to editorialize the article in ways that either flatter Min or discredit his opponents. That is why I think a redirect/deletion would be the best option. I agree with the other editors that suggest reinstating the article in November might make sense if Min wins the election.BrittonBurdick (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Cullen. The existence of some campaign-related coverage is not in and of itself a free pass over WP:GNG for an as yet unelected candidate who doesn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage, so that coverage does not establish notability in and of itself unless it explodes to a degree that marks him out as a special case over and above most other candidates. We do not exist as a promotional venue for publishing aspiring officeholders' campaign brochures — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to be considered notable as a politician. Notability here is not measured by temporary newsiness — it is measured by the will people still be looking for an article about this person ten years from now test, which unelected candidates for office normally do not pass. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, since his notability equation will thus have changed, but nothing here is already enough to get him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Cullen, who explained the issue quite well. Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign biographies, and candidates are, outside the context of their race, low-profile individuals. --Enos733 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many instances of significant national coverage about him around the time of his announcement in April 2017 to run. I think he received more coverage and attention than is typical for the position he's running for, but all those articles might be considered standard reporting for a newly announced candidate. However, he has also received additional national news coverage since then, which shows there is national interest in him and the race beyond what is typical. He received more than a paragraph in NYT in Nov 2017, and six paragraphs leading an article on candidates of color on CNN in January 2018 and an article about how he's campaigning in Roll Call. He made huge headlines during the Democratic Party Convention when he just barely received the nomination. I think he easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary, independent sources, even if you ignore the "standard" coverage about his candidacy. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per nom. Also per WP:NTEMP and WP:TOOSOON. -O.R.Comms 02:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep National coverage + he is an assistant professor + ethnic minority + bitcoin + seems mildly interesting. On other hand, needs to be kept under control...  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 08:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage is of the election, not him as a person. Unelected candidates for congress are just almost always non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Cullen328. The article does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and does not establish notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I want to thank Cullen328  for his assistance in helping me avoid an edit war and shepherding the recommendation to redirect this page.  I am in agreement, with users who recommend keeping this page, but I am a voter in the 45th Congressional District, and I have met all the candidates.   I'm also probably the person responsible for having this page removed, if that is the outcome, because I'm the one who brought the egregious edits to everyone's attention, so I am not weighing in.   I especially want to thank  Dr. Fleischman for his extensive edits to help maintain a neutral tone on the page, and want to thank  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ and others for their contributions.  But I also want to admonish BrittonBurdick  who rather disingenuously wrote "I've done my best to revert promotional editorialization but have a hunch it will continue to happen through June 5th" and then went on to insert yet another highly biased opinion without first discussing it on the talk page.  He's the reason we're having this discussion. Gbonline (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now. (Maybe I should abstain...we have the same employer and there are four Dave Min campaign signs on the block where I live. Feel free to disregard if you think that makes for too much of a COI.) For now, the coverage appears to be only about his campaign (usually considered non-passing of WP:POLITICIAN), and we don't have evidence of passing WP:PROF. If he makes it through the primary and then wins the general, he will become notable, or maybe we can look back at all this later and see lasting interest in his campaign that makes it notable even if he doesn't win. But there's no hurry and for now I think it's better not to open the floodgates of "this person got their campaign covered in the newspaper so they're notable". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet, we have plenty of evidence of him passing WP:BASIC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that statement. The sources you posted are good ones but don't, in my reading, proving lasting notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you're referring to WP:SUSTAINED? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect. The only thing I could find looking for legal scholarship under his name is that he signed this letter from 120 banking law professors to Congress opposing a change in Dodd–Frank. If he gets elected to Congress, he's notable, but otherwise he should concentrate on getting published if he wants ten^H^H^Ha Wikipedia article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2018 (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.