Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jinyoung Englund


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Jinyoung Englund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considering the Manka Dhingra page was deleted because "We should have an article about the race, not about an unelected candidate." (Cullen328) The Jinyoung page should follow the same rules. GhostDraggin (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject was profiled by the Korea Times, the Hill, and the Northwest Asian Weekly prior to her campaign for office. In addition, her campaign received international coverage from the Korea Daily.  The international coverage of the campaign, and multiple profiles in national papers (especially before 2017), lend itself to a WP:GNG pass. Additionally, each subject needs to be evaluated on their own merits.  --Enos733 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The most comparable article, the one about Dhingra, also had national news sources such as Politico and the Hill --172.58.41.202 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL. A candidate for a state legislature will almost never be notable as a result of their candidacy.  I don't see a case for notability based on her Bitcoin work either. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject doesn't meet WP:NPOL. However, the subject was profiled by multiple national outlets each from different angles - politics, business, and as a community volunteer/activist (all prior to the campaign). This coverage should lead to a WP:GNG pass. Also, WP:POLOUTCOMES recognizes that local politicians may become notable if they receive "national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." While the subject is not  a current officeholder, the international coverage/profile of her candidacy, I think, should be considered similar to that of a local politician that is profiled in an international paper. --Enos733 (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you respond the the fact the Dhingra had similar qualifications, but had been deleted? --GhostDraggin (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't contain much evidence that she was substantively profiled in national or international sources — apart from one article in the Korea Times, which isn't enough by itself, what it contains for extralocal sourcing is glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of either the overall race or Bitcoin, not nationalized sources that are substantively about her. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Every candidate in any election is always going to garner some degree of coverage, because covering elections is a big part of what the media is for, but candidates are not automatically deemed notable just because that coverage exists — candidacy-related coverage is run of the mill for election candidates, because it's simply expected to exist for any person who's running as a candidate whether she has a substantive and enduring notability claim or not. What we've got here, however, is almost entirely a mix of routine and almost exclusively local candidacy-related coverage of exactly the type and volume that matches what's expected, primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, and glancing namechecks of her existence in references that aren't substantively about her. The only source here that actually establishes any real notability at all, by passing all three of the "substantively about her", "from a reliable source" and "not just about her candidacy" tests, is the Korea Times article — but one source doesn't singlehandedly confer a WP:GNG pass all by itself. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins the seat, but nothing here constitutes a compelling reason why she would already qualify for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the "Korea Times" article were the only profile, I would agree. However, she has a short profile in "the Hill," published in 2015. Also, I think we cannot discount the (yes campaign) coverage in the "Korea Daily." This international coverage is beyond the normal scope of a candidate for a state legislative race.  --Enos733 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The "profile" in The Hill is a blurb in a "50 most beautiful people in politics" listicle whose other finalists mostly don't have articles either, not a substantive profile for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG. And yes, we can discount the Korea Daily piece — as you note, it's campaign coverage, not offering any evidence that her candidacy has unusual noteworthiness over other candidacies. The rule is not that a candidate gets a special case exemption from NPOL the moment one source beyond the local takes notice of her existence as a candidate — that coverage has to explode to Jon Ossoff or Christine O'Donnell proportions, which this hasn't done, before it makes her special. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think where we are finding disagreement is whether NPOL or GNG is the appropriate standard for evaluating the subject. I think we agree that in general, unelected candidates for office do not meet the criteria for notability. The electoral contest may be notable, and in this case, I am convinced the Washington 45th legislative district special election, 2017 would meet our inclusion criteria. Details about the candidates could be included there. We also agree that campaign coverage, in and of itself, would not automatically confer notability to a candidate (or even the existence of non-local coverage), because the subject is involved in a single event., with the event being the campaign (recognizing the extraordinary exceptions of Jon Ossoff or Christine O'Donnell). Where I think we differ is what happens when a subject does not quite meet our notability guidelines prior to candidacy, and gains RS coverage through an election campaign. My sense is that in these cases, similar to the circumstances in this AfD, that the electoral coverage adds to the conversation of whether a subject passes the general notability guidelines. (Meaning, just because we discount campaign coverage under the standards expressed in NPOL with common outcomes described in WP:POLOUTCOMES, does not mean that the campaign coverage is entirely discounted when accessing notability under GNG).
 * To me, looking at this subject holistically, we see a subject that is profiled by an international paper, local press, and a publication with a national reach (all prior to candidacy), served as a spokesperson for a notable non-profit organization with a worldwide scope, and details of her biography and issue positions are covered by numerous local and (some) national and international papers. While none of these activities would lead to notability by themselves (or even two of the three), I assert this combination does.  --Enos733 (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Candidacy for office always brings a level of coverage that which focuses on the race and candidates at large. I do not see the sources here providing substantial coverage of the individual above that of the thousands of people who run for office. Laughable to think that a 50 most beautiful listing makes the person notable just because it is a major reliable source. This is a campaign ad that can be recreated if she wins. Reywas92Talk 22:37, 24 August 2017 (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.