Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Chen (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 12:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jay Chen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:NPOL - wasn't elected to congress or similar Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have to say whoever write this is really good to put Chen's best foot forward; but does not tell the whole story. Being a Mt. college Board of Trustees, school District school board member does not qualify to meet WP:NPOL and moreover he lost the to Ed Royce in 2012 for the  California's 39th congressional district race which it does not state in the article - see HERE. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get articles for running as candidates in elections they did not win, so having been an unsuccessful congressional candidate in 2012 has no bearing on his notability at all — but the roles he has held, on the board of trustees of a public community college and a local school board, are not roles that guarantee a person a Wikipedia article either, and this is referenced nowhere near well enough to make him a special case. To be considered notable enough for an article on these grounds, the bar he would have to clear is that he's been the subject of much, much more nationalized coverage than the norm for these roles, thus making him much more nationally notable than the hundreds of thousands of other people who've done the same things without getting Wikipedia articles for them. The references are a primary source board member profile on the college's own self-published website, which is not a notability-supporting source at all; a very short blurb about him withdrawing from a primary, which is not substantive coverage; and a glancing mention of his existence in an article that isn't about him to any non-trivial degree. This is not how you make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 11:24, 24 October 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.