Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindy Li


 * 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. Tone 12:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lindy Li

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable individual. Sourcing fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep clearly notable, seems WP:BEFORE was not done prior to this nomination, there are many WP:Reliable sources cited in the article in which the subject has significant coverage and many more can be found (many google news sources). Polyamorph (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * changed from speedy keep to keep. Polyamorph (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , BEFORE was done. I was not impressed. Most of them are insignificant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet sources with significant coverage do exist and not just for recent events. They're not hard to find. Polyamorph (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , correction: sources with WP:ROUTINE coverage are not hard to find. I don't see any significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a great deal of routine coverage. But there are also multiple reliable sources from 2015 to the present day, some of which have been provided in this discussion (notably Independent and NBC), that do represent WP:SIGCOV. I feel there is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, although WP:NOPAGE leaning is not unreasonable. Polyamorph (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, I haven't searched for sources online yet, so I am not voting just yet. However, I do disagree with the statement above that many of the already-cited sources have significant coverage. Coverage cited in the article consists of interviews in student publications and routine political candidacy press. The only citation that I see so far that clearly contributes toward GNG is . signed,Rosguill talk 16:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fair enough if you don't like the interview sources, though I would say some are reliable sources, but nevertheless the NBC source is certainly reliable together with the Independent. Coverage in other reliable sources includes: Inquirer, South China Morning Post, another NBC article from 2015. This is by no means exhaustive, just a few examples. Demonstrating long lasting coverage around the world. Polyamorph (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad on the NBC piece, I saw that it was election coverage for the subjects' failed congressional run and mentally wrote it off. I see now that it did have enough biographical information that it can be considered nontrivial. I'm still not thrilled that the available coverage is either 1) borderline ROUTINE election coverage for a failed attempt to become the youngest US congressperson, 2) interviews or 3) glancing coverage that's much more about Bernie vs. Biden than it is about the subject. signed,Rosguill talk 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, having searched for sources online now, while there's a flurry of recent coverage, virtually all of it is about a Twitter skirmish related to the 2020 election. I'm leaning toward a WP:NOPAGE decision, perhaps integrating coverage about her into a section of Bernie Bros or a similar article. signed,Rosguill talk 17:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Lots of sources including NBC and the Independent. Other reliable sources not included include Fox News and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Has done a lot and works for Biden’s campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B017:11DB:60A9:FBEB:BBB1:C121 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable political figure. Other sources include   ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 21:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable and quite involved with the 2020 election and other political events in the foreseeable future.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG see also in-depth article in 2020 Vanity Fair. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already seen that source; it provides extremely detailed coverage of a Twitter kerfluffle with unclear long-term consequences. I maintain my WP:NOPAGE position, which is distinct from arguing that it doesn't meet GNG; if we were to follow secondary source's coverage of the subject when writing an article, we'd end up with an article almost entirely about said Twitter drama, which I don't think makes sense as a standalone article that is ostensibly a biography. IMO it makes much more sense to cover that incident in the context of existing articles about the 2020 election and related culture wars. signed,Rosguill talk 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Failure of WP:GNG is the rationale of this nomination, so the deletion nomination fails if this is shown not to be the case. Nevertheless, your WP:NOPAGE position is reasonable. Polyamorph (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just replying here because I got pinged in that comment. signed,Rosguill talk 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, sorry to hijack your reply. Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Rarely do major publications like Vanity Fair and The Washington Post write in-depth profiles on campaign staffers. It is because she was notable and significant in her own right that she received the coverage. Also the youngest Asian-American to ever run for federal office. Please do not erase that history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , clear WP:BLP1E failure. This isn't about her, it's about the stir her interview caused. And campaign staffers do interviews all the time, and it is so WP:ROUTINE that none of this is reaching GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is significant coverage in multiple RS, enough to write a good bio, starting with 1) substantial interest during her failed 2016 Congressional campaign including in WaPo and 2) in February 2020 her feud with Bernie Bros that was covered by the Inquirer and Vanity Fair, before her March 2020 "interview" "stir." And that stir was minimal, despite the best efforts of some partisans to puff it up into a scandal that could get some press. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep coverage from several notable sources. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep several reliable sources for the subject. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable political figure. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Significant political figure who has been around for years and will continue to play a role in the 2020 presidential campaign. Vanity Fair recently wrote a profile on her, in addition to The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-congressional-kid-how-a-millennial-plans-to-make-it-to-the-capitol/2015/08/14/cec02162-3f62-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html. 13 March 2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Significant political figure  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4380:8700:E07F:ADCB:C100:7B0F (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2020 (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.