Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Lee Zhou


 * 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. Consensus is to delete on WP:GNG / WP:NPOL grounds. There are some suggestions to merge or redirect to 2019 San Francisco mayoral election, but not enough to call that the official "outcome" of this debate. So I will delete and unlink (the only mainspace links are from 2018 San Francisco mayoral special election and 2019 San Francisco mayoral election, and if folks think it should be a redirect, they can feel free to do that. ST47 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ellen Lee Zhou

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unelected politician, passing coverage, seems to fail both WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NBIO. De facto electoral advertising, complete with a DYK nomination and the usual red flag of WP:SPA contributions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. it should be clear that  vandalized the page I wrote, no? Did you check the history? They didn't write the article, they just tried to turn it into a campaign ad, which I've reverted as they are a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that they tried to make it even more like an ad is not helping, no. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way is anything I wrote an endorsement of Zhou? Certainly I'm helping her campaign by reporting her belief in conspiracy theories and her endorsement of a Trump wall in a city as Democratic as SF? Is it not our aim to feature more women in politics? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, I am not going to argue you wrote an ad, again, the version I reviewed initially was the one rewritten by the SPA, yours is certainly more neutral. My main concern here is not neutrality, but notability, which we discuss below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: By the way, editors should be aware that is trying to get even the image File:Ellen Lee Zhou.jpg deleted completely without merit. Per commons:COM:YT the image is clearly allowed to be on Commons regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image is free, I've withdrawn the nomination for it. It is in either case mostly irrelevant to this topic, through it is worth noting that currently, the article at the point of its nomination did not use that more neutral image, but instead an explicit election poster... Now, I see that there is an edit war there between the SPA and the creator (Psiĥedelisto), through I expect the SPA will just get blocked soon for edit warring, solving one problem. I concur that the Psiĥedelisto's version is more neutral, through I still don't believe it passes NBIO.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree on two counts. A single revert of obviously unencyclopedic content is not an edit war. I'm not the only one reverting 's improper edits, although you're probably right that they're going to be blocked. WP:POLITICIAN states Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Zhou has been covered in World Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, Mission Local, San Francisco Examiner, National Review (!!!), and extensively in The Epoch Times, which I realize is a problematic source. There is more than enough coverage for an article Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting a paragraph or a single sentence quote is very much 'not' extensive coverage. Instead, it is the very definition of passing, minor coverage that is not sufficient for NBIO. Did any of those sources dedicate at least several paragraphs to her? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources are all there in the article. National Review wrote three paragraphs about her. The Epoch Times has covered her extensively. World Journal wrote an article entirely about her. Mission Local wrote a long piece about a protest Zhou organized. KTSF wrote a long piece as well, and regularly covers her in Chinese. SFGate wrote a long piece about her before she was even a politician. The article has 14 sources and I haven't even found everything yet. Did you even check them? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not much of this in in-depth, but I have stricter criteria than some, and this is a borderline type of an entry, in my experience this AfD can swing 50/50. Let's leave this to others and see what they think about this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you will not withdraw, there's nothing else I can do, is there? You've moved the goalpost from "three paragraphs" to "in-depth", whatever that means. There is tons of in-depth coverage in both English and Chinese. I think you opened this against a vandalized article, failed to check the history, and now when faced with overwhelming evidence that I attempted to write this article in a NPOV way with now 15 sources, you can't admit your error. So yes, let's see what others say. 50/50 is being very optimistic on your end. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW I have added the licensereview tag to the Commons pic. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Pray4america (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC) I agree that the original picture should be deleted. This is 2019, and was still using 2018 picture (out of thousands currently public available pictures, he used that ugly one on purpose). Please remove that picture, and use a latest one. Also, please remove all the unfair labeling words, it's not your role to judge a person to be a far right or leftist, so do not do it! I will for sure add some more neutral materials after this is settled down. Of course your advice will be put into consideration. A simple revert to the last year version doesn't help the world to know a candidate what she is, it was a very politically skewed one. Thanks.
 * Hello . Are you Ellen Lee Zhou? Do you work for Ellen Lee Zhou? You sent an email to OTRS for the picture, that is not something I can do as I have no connection to Ms. Zhou. Please understand Wikipedia's policies on this matter. A free image must always be used if available. Only dead people can have copyrighted images of them used under fair use, as making a free image of them is impossible after their death. I found many pictures of Ms. Zhou in my research, but the only one that was freely licensed was the one I used. Please always assume good faith here on Wikipedia unless you have a good reason to believe the image was purposefully chosen. I don't think Ms. Zhou looks bad in the 2018 image at all. In fact, I purposefully chose a timestamp where Ms. Zhou had a neutral expression. I could have easily chosen one with Zhou having an open mouth, or closed eyes, or any other wacky expression as happens when people are talking. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Pray4america (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)::Hello I am not Ellen Lee Zhou, and I do not work for her. I only wanted to help her to appear the way she should be. Ellen Lee Zhou is still alive, and she has a 2019 campaign site with a lot of pictures. Also she has social media account where you can easily use to contact her directly. For all the personal life, professional experience and media coverage. Yet you didn't do any of these, and you removed all the social media info I put into this page. I understand as the original author of this page, you felt a little at loss when somebody else came and modify it with so much enrichment. Yet I ask you to also understand that this page does not belong to you, and it's not your property. When you contributed to wikipedia, it belongs to the world, and it should be tested by all sides of all the social/potitical/ethnic issues. Yes, that's true that you could easily choose a much worse picture, but you do know that if it's across the boundary, it's not neutral any more even on the looking. Please be open to other people's contribution. Only after hearing more inputs, this page can start to be neutral. The content right now, it very much skewed. And my goal here is to help wikipedia to be true source of truth, and prevent it from being hijacked by a few political views. Thanks.
 * If you aren't Ms. Zhou, and you don't work for Ms. Zhou, did you take the photo File:Ellen Lee Zhou New Profile Pic.png? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pray4america (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC) I got this email directly from her. It was simple I just wrote her an email. Do you want to see our email exchange?
 * So you emailed Ms. Zhou, she agreed to license her image under the CC 4.0 license, and then you forwarded that email to OTRS? I don't have a problem with the new image if it is properly licensed. You're under no obligation to show me the exchange (that's what OTRS is for), but if you'd like you can send it to me at Special:EmailUser/Psiĥedelisto and I can tell you if what she wrote to you is enough, and if it wasn't, what you need to get her to tell you instead. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Pray4america (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Since this picture is from herself, Ellen Lee can give any license you need. That's why I put the license part as: can provide when requested. Thanks.
 * Did you email OTRS? I don't tend to make contact with the people I write about. I am not obligated to do so, and if they want to change the photo in their article, they can join the project and upload an image themselves, then let me know on my talk page (or just change the image). I will not be emailing Ms. Zhou. Did Ms. Zhou license File:Ellen Lee Zhou New Profile Pic.png under the terms of the CC 4.0 or not? Or have you uploaded it just on the assumption such license would be provided on request? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems well sourced with 3rd party sources to me, I'm not seeing the election advertising that the AFD originally claims in the current version.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 06:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they have not won; a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to clear WP:NPOL. But candidates also do not get a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL just because some local campaign coverage exists in the election context — every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage, so if the existence of that coverage were enough in and of itself then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would become completely meaningless. Furthermore, a considerable number of the media hits here are not about her in any substantive way, but just glancingly mention her name in the process of being about somebody or something else (which are not sources that help to demonstrate or bolster her notability, because she isn't their subject) — and several more are primary sources (committees' self-published meeting minutes, raw tables of ballot counting results, etc.), which are not support for notability either. GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number: it also tests for the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what she's getting coverage for, and the sources here all fail one or more of those tests. Running for mayor is not an inherently notable context that would get her over GNG just because some election coverage exists in the city's local media, because every candidate for mayor of anywhere can always show that. Obviously she'll qualify for an article on or after November 5 if she wins, but nothing here adds up to a reason why she would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * She is very well known in the Chinese-American community in San Francisco and is always protesting something or another. We have articles about quite a few perennial candidates who became notable just by running for office repeatedly. I cited a few primary sources but respected the guidelines around doing that. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Asserting that a person is well known in one city's local ethnic community is not a notability criterion in and of itself, and neither is "always protesting something or another". The notability test is not measured in terms of counting up how many people in one city you think have heard of her; there are lots of notable people in the world you probably haven't heard of, and lots of non-notable people you probably have. The notability test is measured by whether she has a credible claim of nationalized significance (i.e. a reason why she might be just as important for people in Portland, Maine to read about as for San Franciscans) that can be supported by a nationalized range of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * World Journal and National Review are certainly national publications. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not looking for nationalized sources that mention Ellen Lee Zhou in the process of being about something else — we're looking for nationalized sources in which Ellen Lee Zhou is the subject. Y'ain't shown none of that. Being asked to give soundbite to the media in an article about something or somebody else is not the same thing as notability-supporting sources about her. Bearcat (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think that's necessary, I don't see anything in the relevant policy pages to support that being a necessity. Can you point out to me where this requirement comes from? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's right in the basic definition of notability: a source supports a subject's notability if it is substantively about said subject, and does not support notability if it merely mentions the subject's name in passing in the process of being about something else. For an example, this newspaper article is valid support for the notability of novelist Rachel Cusk. It is not valid support for the notability of Nathan Whitlock as its author, and it is not relevant to the notability of William Shatner, D.H. Lawrence, Edith Wharton, Natalia Ginzburg or Elizabeth Gilbert even though their names are all mentioned in it too — because it isn't about any of those people, it is about Rachel Cusk. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete candidates for election will have news coverage. We have decided not all candidates are notable. We either need truly significant news coverage or non-election related coverage, both of which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At least one source dates from before she ran for office. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We need a lot more than just one piece of pre-campaign coverage to establish that she was already notable enough for an article before being a candidate. GNG is not just "anybody who's ever gotten their name into their local newspaper"; it requires a lot more than that. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apart from what has already been elucidated regarding articles about election candidates, I have concerns about such an article being published during an election campaign - it compromises the perception of Wikipedia's neutrality. I am referring to how it might be perceived; I'm not questioning the creator's intentions. Also, at least one source is not neutral and is clearly poking fun at the woman's inability to draw much support at a demonstration (Mission Local. Crowd of 4 show up). Felixkrater (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Supposed effects on the perception of the project by outsiders is never a valid reason to delete. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When you are a candidate who runs rallies that get less than 10 at a rally which is then the subject of a mocking article in a hyper local publication you are not fitting the definition of notable. We had way more people are the pro-religious freedom rally I attended in Ann Arbor, a rally that was specifically targetted at angst against the Obama birth-control mandates. We were at over 200 people, maybe even more than that. So yes, even in a bastion of liberalism like San Francisco or Ann Arobor you can get attendance at a conservative rally, doing a rally with less than 10 participants shows you have little pull or organizational leadership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable participant in San Francisco politics for many years.  – Athaenara  ✉  02:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of that in the article. If she really was a notable political figure, it would have been possible to write a more substantial article about her and to find better sources. Note: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office" and "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" WP:POLITICIAN. Someone who has never held office and who can muster only 4 to 8 people for a demo on the steps of city hall, during an election campaign, is not a major political figure. She does not fit the notability criteria.Felixkrater (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * She is a human being with a history, not merely a politician. I don't normally argue with people on Wikipedia because I consider it a colossal waste of time, particularly when it's treated as a political battleground.  I'll just note this article about her fourteen years ago .  (I live in San Francisco, by the way.)  – Athaenara  ✉  08:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The existence of one 14-year-old article in her local newspaper is not enough coverage to demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate — and that's the same article that was already profferred and responded to above, so it isn't a new data point. If one piece of coverage in the local newspaper was enough to make a person encyclopedically notable, we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got into the local newspaper several years ago for finding a pig in her yard. GNG is not just "anybody who can show that their name has ever appeared in any newspaper for any reason whatsoever": as I already explained above, it requires a lot more than just the existence of an arbitrary number of footnotes. It also tests for the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about her, the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and the context of what she's getting coverage for. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2019 San Francisco mayoral election - Candidate is not inherently notable on her own outside of her candidacy for mayor. Move information about her campaign and the racist op-ed to the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This has been a somewhat difficult decision, but on balance I think the concerns with GNG are justified. That there are sources that make reference to her with regards to her political ambitions is not in doubt, but the coverage is far too limited. The article hangs the notability squarely on her running for political office, but in the absence of her not yet having held any notable office, there is nothing beyond that. The article is a collection of her campaign work, policies and statements, which any campaigner in this election, or any other would be able to demonstrate, and that does not itself confer sufficiently notability to pass wikipedia policies. Spokoyni (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've all but accepted at this point I'm going to need more sources to recreate this article. I'm not happy about it but I'll wait until after the election and see where things stand. Editors should be aware User:Pray4america has admitted the COI I suspected, see evidence at WP:COI/N. I will recreate the article after the election if it is deleted and if in that time a national newspaper profiles her, to meet the request of User:Bearcat, although I don't think that should be necessary. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Psiĥedelisto "User:Pray4america has admitted the COI I suspected", wow! Good job putting your words into other people's mouth. Getting permission with a publicly available email to contact the person in question, is COI according to your definition? And constantly smering a person with leftist idiologies is "neutral"? I do not understand it, and I do not understand if that's the way wikipedia is functioning. Pray4america (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Psiĥedelisto, just to be clear, the thing you're being asked to understand is that every mayoral candidate in every city can always show some evidence of mayoral campaign coverage in the local media — just last year alone, the city I live in had 35 mayoral candidates, the city I grew up in had 11 and the city where I went to university had 12, and since all three of those cities have local media, every last one of those 58 people can be referenced to some evidence of campaign coverage — but Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that maintaining an article about everybody who ever ran for mayor of anywhere is not our role or mandate. A person has to win the election to clear NPOL, and otherwise candidates are accepted as notable only if they can credibly demonstrate that either (a) they were already notable under another Wikipedia notability criterion for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) their candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies for some nationally significant reason. That's why you need to show nationalized coverage: this article is not demonstrating that she was already notable enough for an article before running for mayor, so it has to show that her candidacy is somehow much more notable than Joel Ventresca's, Paul Ybarra Robertson's, Robert Jordan's or Wilma Pang's; somehow much more notable than the 34 people in my city who ran for mayor last year and didn't win; and on and so forth. And even if "a national newspaper profiles her" between now and November 5, that still won't be the magic ticket by itself: we would still need to see several such pieces, not just one, before the notability equation would start to shift here. If she wins, then yes, things will automatically change and an article will be justified — but if she doesn't, an article about her isn't justified unless you can show convincing evidence that either she was already notable for some other reason, or her candidacy was special. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There seems to be sufficient news coverage apart from the campaign-related matters. Of course, the natural stance for Wikipedians is to deny current candidates an advertising opportunity, rather than restoring to a neutral version and protecting it. If this was deleted and then re-created after the election I wouldn't be upset about it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the article showing any coverage about her "apart" from the campaign-related matters? Nearly every single footnote here that's not campaign-specific is a glancing mention of her existence in a source whose primary subject is something or somebody else besides her, not notability-making coverage about her — and the only one that is about her in any non-trivial way has already been addressed at least twice in this discussion as not in and of itself enough to make her notable outside of the campaign itself if it's the only "both about her and predating the campaign" source that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand overlooking routine sources from campaign coverage but I don't think we have to discount all sources that mention the subject is a candidate, as if that doesn't matter. There are multiple citations about the crime perceived to be targeting the Chinese community, wherein Zhou is mentioned.  That's not routine coverage. What puts me off from your rationale is the degree to which you argue with opposing views, which leads me to believe you're some sort of partisan. If you think sources from during a campaign don't count, then you need to re-read WP:GNG. This subject doesn't have to pass NPOL if she passes GNG.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to reread anything. We have a long-established consensus that because all candidates in all elections can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, but all candidates in all elections are not always notable enough for Wikipedia, campaign coverage does not establish that a person passes GNG unless it explodes far, far out of scope with what every other candidate can also show. It's the same as the reason why we don't accept most city councillors as notable just because they have some coverage in their local media, and why we don't accept that every restaurant on earth is notable just because the local restaurant critic has reviewed it in the local newspaper — just because local coverage exists, in a context where local coverage is simply expected to exist, does not add up to a reason why the rest of the world needs an article to exist. GNG is not just "count up the media hits and keep anything that exceeds a certain arbitrary number" — it also tests for depth and geographic range and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and being an unelected candidate for mayor is not a notable context where the mere existence of the expected local campaign coverage is enough to make the candidate notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I applaud the fact that you're even more of a deletionist that I. Despite that, I've seen GNG swing much lower than this. Further, neither National Review nor NTD and World Journal (all cited here) are local routine coverage. Can the other candidates also show wide coverage? The article about the current mayor is even more dominated by local sources. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * San Francisco is a large and important enough city that an article about its mayor is expected, so we don't care about the localness or non-localness of her sourcing — London Breed holds an inherently notable role where an article is automatically mandatory, so she doesn't have to pass any nationalizing coverage tests at all. The standard for candidates is different than the standard for actual officeholders is, however — Wikipedia does not accept unelected candidates as inherently notable just because their name is present on a ballot, so an unelected candidate does have to clear much higher bars of sourceability that mark her out as much more special than other candidates. And as for National Review nor NTD and World Journal, those have all already been discussed here: they're not all substantively about her, and even if they were, making a candidate notable enough for an article still requires more than just a small handful of wider than local coverage: it requires nationalized coverage that explodes to Christine O'Donnell proportions, and is not just automatically satisfied the moment you can show a couple of pieces of more than purely local coverage. And no, I'm not a "deletionist", either: I'm an article-quality-matters-ist if I'm anything. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment As stated on my user page, I am intermediate in Chinese. I've found some more sources in Chinese or by Chinese publications:
 * 李愛晨力排眾議 嚴辭反注毒中心 [Ellen Lee Zhou denounces new anti-drug center], Sing Tao Daily, 12 April 2019
 * 華人基督教領袖林修榮 挺李愛晨選市長 [Chinese Christian leader Lin Xiurong (林修榮) endorses Ellen Lee Zhou for mayor], World Journal, 22 May 2018 (please note that this is not the same World Journal piece I already linked)
 * Asian Americans rally for better social security, crackdown on crime in San Francisco, Xinhua (national Chinese state run media), 9 July 2019
 * 美国华裔李爱晨加入共和党籍 再战旧金山市长选举, [American Chinese Li Aichen joins the Republican Party and fights for the San Francisco Mayor election], Overseas Chinese Network (中国侨网), 13 December 2018
 * 加州2018選舉季候選人介紹, [California 2018 election season candidate introduction], this is a 30 minute interview with Ms. Zhou in Chinese on New Tang Dynasty Television
 * I ask that editors rethink their decisions in light of the multitude of Chinese sources. She is important in the Chinese-American community. I could keep going but let's stick with these. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's already been explained to you that campaign-specific coverage does not bolster the notability of a candidate who is not already established as having already been notable enough for an article independently of the candidacy — every candidate can always show campaign coverage, and you're still not showing any sources which demonstrate that her candidacy is more notable than Joel Ventresca's, Paul Ybarra Robertson's, Robert Jordan's or Wilma Pang's, or the 34 people in my city who ran for mayor last year without winning. So no, showing more articles about her mayoral campaign speeches doesn't change anything, articles which briefly mention her name in the process of being fundamentally about something other than her don't change anything, campaign endorsements from other people don't change anything, and Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person don't change anything either. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's simply not what WP:NPOL says. That's just your standard, which I don't agree with. Furthermore, I don't know if you can read Chinese, but some of the sources are not even about the campaign, but rather about the rallies of Ms. Zhou, mostly for gun rights and against crime in San Francisco. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, you ask me, why is Mrs. Zhou special? Let me try to answer, but these are just my opinions, what motivated me to research her and write the article. For one thing, she's the only Republican running. For another, she's not ordinary&mdash;hanging around with far-right YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux (and making documentaries with them where she accosts homeless people and says they want to be homeless), spouting baseless conspiracy theories, and getting a lot of the Chinese community around her. She also says a lot of thinly veiled racist messages. This makes her interesting, she is like the mythical fed up Chinese–American so often in the right wing imagination, she even wants a border wall...as an immigrant herself! National Review and The Epoch Times love her for that. None of the other candidates are interesting at all. We all know she'll lose, but after she does the Chinese press will keep turning out new articles and I'm sure she'll keep holding rallies and doing whatever she can to advance right-wing politics in San Francisco. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is exactly what NPOL says, and is most certainly not just my personal standard. It's not sufficient to stand on just the letter of what you think a notability standard technically says — you also have to understand the established consensus around how notability standards are actually applied at AFD when differing interpretations have come up for consideration, because all of our notability standards can be read in self-serving ways by people who are trying to oversell their pet topics. Every candidate in every election can always claim that they've been exempted from having to pass NPOL because campaign coverage exists to get them over GNG, for example — so if that were how it worked, then NPOL would literally mean nothing anymore and Wikipedia would just be a database of campaign brochures rather than an encyclopedia. So we have an established consensus that candidates for municipal office are accepted as notable only if they can be properly demonstrated as already having been notable for other reasons prior to their candidacies, or if their candidacies can be demonstrated as much more special than other people's candidacies, and are not automatically deemed to pass GNG just because some campaign coverage happens to exist. And whatever you think the distinction between "campaign coverage" and "coverage of rallies" would be, it's undercut by the fact that the rallies are campaign rallies.
 * People are also not special just because of what political party they happen to be associated with, or who they happen to hang around with, or who thinks they're "interesting". It is not our role to keep an article about everybody who happens to pop up in the current news cycle; our role is to keep articles about people whose notability claims pass the ten year test for enduring significance, and none of what you're saying constitutes strong evidence that she has attained that: nothing here suggests that people will still be looking for an article about her in 2029 even if she loses the election and fades away. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know your position, and your interpretation of the current consensus. I disagree, I think even if Mrs. Zhou, God forbid, dropped dead tomorrow, San Franciscans will be interested in her mark on American history in 2029. I don't think you can be convinced, and I don't wish to argue with you further. I understand you think I'm not interpreting the guidelines right, and you understand I don't think you're right about the current consensus (even not assuming WP:Consensus can change). I don't see any point in further argument; you're likely to win anyway as I already pointed out in a previous comment. It's up to the closer what happens now, and other editors to consider my evidence. I knew when I posted it you would not accept it, but you're not the only one that's pro-deletion here. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Since when is getting less than 5% of the vote notable? This is ridiculous. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Nor is it an incubator for what we want people to be one day. Trillfendi (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The percentage of votes gotten has absolutely nothing to do with notability. Vermin Supreme never even gets that much of the vote, he's lucky to receive half of a percent. See perennial candidate for a long list of other notable people who are lucky to get even 1% of the vote in their elections. Zhou is notable whether or not she becomes mayor, that's my position&mdash;if anything, her ability to get 5% of the vote bolsters her notability as it shows she has more support than her fellow perennial candidates. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vermin Supreme's article is demonstrating notability for much more than just being a losing candidate. In actual fact, even most perennial candidates are not kept either, unless they can demonstrate notability for much more significant reasons than just being a perennial candidate per se — John Turmel, for example, doesn't have an article just for being a perennial candidate, he has an article because he has been verifiably named to the Guinness Book of Records as the single most perennially losing candidate in the entire worldwide history of politics. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is, if it wasn’t obvious, that she isn’t a notable politician, having lost her initial attempt at political office so disastrously. Is she notable in other areas? From what I’ve seen, no. Not enough for an article. If by an act of God she wins something then refund, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Trillfendi (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Deleteand then REDIRECT or Merge to 2019 San Francisco mayoral election. Fails WP:NPOL and isn't inherently notable outside the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW the user who made the article has been blocked w/o TPA for using WP for promotion. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the two users, the one who was a SPA. I think the other author is safe and sound, as he is an established Wikipedian who did nothing wrong :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:NPOL, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:NPOL, and WP:NOTPROMOTION.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others above. DoudouTh appears to have a COI, as they are trying to upload an own work photo to Commons.  — Jeff G. ツ 14:31, 29 September 2019 (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.