Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meena Wong


 * 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. maybe this will change after the election Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Meena Wong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a politician whose only substantive claim of notability is being an unelected candidate for Mayor of Vancouver in the 2014 municipal election. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — she'll qualify for an article if she wins the election, certainly, but isn't automatically entitled to one just for having her name on the ballot — and with only two sources the article isn't sourced up enough to get her past WP:GNG. As always, no prejudice against recreation in October if she wins the election, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I did read this interview which gave me some pause, but it's all in the context of election related publicity, an election most sources which reference her note she is highly unlikely to win... Roberticus  talk  09:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has significant coverage which makes her notable per WP:GNG. These are just a handful of the recent pieces covering her: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Her likelihood of winning has nothing to do with WP:GNG. The coverage she has received makes her notable per se. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the campaign itself cannot contribute to getting an unelected candidate over GNG. The media are required to give "equal time" to all candidates in elections in their coverage area — so media coverage is not a thing that some candidates get while others don't, but a thing which all candidates always get, and which would therefore vitiate our rules about excluding unelected candidates who weren't already notable for other things. Rather, unless you can properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before she became a candidate, campaign coverage falls under both WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E — and, short of a media firestorm along the lines of what happened to Christine O'Donnell, contributes nothing toward encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The media are not required to cover all candidates equally. There are plenty of fringe candidates in municipal politics who don't get coverage. WP:ROUTINE refers to "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." The coverage I've cited is not routine. As for WP:BLP1E, she has coverage for previous political activity (1,, ) so that doesn't apply. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's still all coverage of a different political candidacy, and thus still doesn't count for anything more than coverage of this particular candidacy does. (Being an unelected/non-winning candidate in a federal electoral district doesn't confer notability either — a person has to win a seat in the House of Commons, not merely run for one and lose, to claim notability on that basis.) And fringe candidates may not garner as much coverage as "major" candidates do, but they still most certainly do garner media coverage — no candidate in any election ever goes entirely uncovered. And finally, it's a longstanding AFD consensus, not some random thing I personally made up myself, that campaign coverage does fall under ROUTINE and BLP1E if you haven't already properly established that the candidate was already notable enough for an article before the campaign began — if the main claim of notability and the weight of the sourcing are sitting on candidacies for offices that the subject hasn't won, then you have to demonstrate that the volume of coverage has gone far beyond what could normally be expected (i.e. the Christine O'Donnell situation) before you can claim that they've passed GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that she has notability per WP:POLITICIAN. But the number of in-depth news sources about her give her notability. Clearly you don't see it this way. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a politician is the context that the sources are covering her in, so POLITICIAN is the inclusion standard they have to be judged against. They can't give her some generic form of notability while simultaneously failing to give her notability under the very inclusion guideline that applies to what the sources are covering her for.
 * There is a potential path through WP:GNG here, I should point out — but it lies in shifting the substance and the weight of sourcing onto her Chinese head tax activism rather than her unelected candidacies. She can't be notable as a politician and not notable as a politician at the same time — but if you can beef the activism part up enough, she might be notable enough for that to counter her failure to pass POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Bearcat's previous characterization of the coverage being discussed as routine as consistently within the context of ordinary election related news and therefore still don't believe there's enough here to justify a keep. Roberticus  talk  13:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The election is Saturday, November 15, 2014.  --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2014 (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.