Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fue Lee


 * 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 keep due to change in circumstances. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Fue Lee

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Outside of running for office, Lee is not notable Meatsgains (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Normally, I would recommend deleting an article about an unelected political candidate. This case has some unique features. Lee defeated long term Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party incumbent Joe Mullery by 11% in the primary election, and given the voting history of the district, is highly likely to win the general election in ten days. Why delete the article now and likely create a new one in ten days? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft Until he gets elected. Thanks, JohnTombs48 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete . See update below. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election, not even one who defeated a longtime incumbent in a primary — and as Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, his notability is not bolstered by anybody's advance read on his chances of winning. And the rule also cannot have an escape hatch whereby the article is exempt from AFD consideration just because the election is only a week or two away — because if we had that exemption, then every candidate for every elected office at the federal or state level across the entire United States could just suddenly flood Wikipedia with their campaign brochures in October as a last-minute publicity push right when they want it the most to help sway the late deciders who could finally put them over the top. So even if it does seem kind of stupid to delete the article now and then possibly have to recreate it again within days, the rule still has to remain the same as it is at any other time: if you cannot demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for some other reason besides his candidacy, then an article is not appropriate even as long as one minute before he's been declared the winner of the seat. We have the ability to restore deleted articles if necessary, so the length of time remaining until the election is not a reason to suspend the normal rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: The discussion remained open as of election day, and Lee did win the seat as Cullen predicted — so this now needs to be kept, and merely flagged for referencing repair. My overall point about the length of time remaining before the election not being a relevant consideration still stands, however — that would be an escape hatch that could be too easily gamed for campaign publicity. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I am in agreement with Bearcat here. It should not matter if an entry for an individual who does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is deleted months before the subject becomes notable or days before a subject becomes notable. If on November 8, the subject wins his election, the article can be recreated. - Enos733 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: At the time of the nomination, the subject was not notable. In the intervening period, the subject met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I stand by my comment that notability should not be predicted based upon the liklihood of winning a future election. - --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete unelected canddiates for state legislature are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that Cullen328 is right here... We are now 5 days away from an election that will, in all likelihood, result in this subject moving from unelected to elected status, that is, moving from the grey area of possible notability to auto-keep status per WP:POLITICIAN. So let's just hold this one over for another week at this point. Carrite (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk 10:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, for the record, now it's a moot point, as the no-consensus relist means that by definition, the election result will be known one way or the other by the time this is actually closable again. That said, strictly as a matter of principle I remain unconvinced that either the proximity of the election or anybody's opinion of the candidate's chances of winning it should be factors at all in an AFD discussion — because if we set a cutoff that articles about unelected candidates cannot be AFDed until after election day if they're caught X or less number of days before, then (a) what's to stop the next person from arguing that the cutoff should be upped to X+1, X+2, X+10, X+50 or X+365, and (b) what's to stop 50,000 election candidates across the country from suddenly flooding Wikipedia with their campaign brochures exactly X days out if there's no chance of the articles getting deleted before E-Day anymore? Nothing's going to make a difference here anymore, since the election results will be known before anything can actually be done at all, but in future the rule has to remain "if there's no preexisting notability for other things, then no article until the election is won", no exemptions, no deferrals, no loopholes. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you are going on the record with your reasonable opinion, I will also go on the record as reminding you that WP:Ignore all rules is a Wikipedia policy while WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline. Of course, we should not ignore rules blithely, but rather when specific circumstances override our normal, everday interpretation of guidelines. In most cases, an unelected candidate whose biography is up for deletion has never won an election. In this case, Fue Lee has won an election, defeating a five term incumbent by ten percentage points in the primary election. Let's take a closer look at those primary results: Fue Lee got more than ten times the number of votes as the woman who is now his Republican opponent. As for the notion of "campaign brochure", I have supported deleting large numbers of such articles. This article is not a campaign brochure. It contains no promotional language, does not describe his policy positions in glowing terms, and contains no non-neutral language. If there was campaign brochure-style language in the article, the edit button was there to allow you to remove it during the course of this debate and the final days of this election, right? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Winning a primary election counts for exactly squat in and of itself toward making a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and every candidate for any office in the entire country (except the independents) advanced to the general election precisely by winning a primary — so what we have in this instance is not a situation that's in any significant way different from any other candidate whose name is on a ballot today. Winning a primary doesn't make his candidacy more notable in and of itself than the 50,000 other candidates in the United States who also won primaries; it makes him a normal participant in the process that candidates have to participate in to become candidates. And any article which exists because candidate, with no claim of preexisting notability for anything else besides being a candidate, is by definition a campaign brochure regardless of whether the language in the article is promotionally skewed or relatively neutral — it is entirely possible to write a campaign brochure in neutral-sounding and not overly "glowing" or advertorial language. If the candidacy itself is the single solitary reason the article exists, then it's still a campaign brochure regardless of what tone issues do or don't exist. The base notability claim of being an unelected candidate is what makes it a campaign brochure, not the writing tone that is or isn't used to express the fact. Bearcat (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Update Fue Lee was elected with 81.3% of the vote. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good grief, could somebody close this already now that the WP:SNOW has fallen? Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2016 (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.