Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shan Ju Lin


 * 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. There are a few people saying "Keep" here, but they either fail to advance a policy-based reason for keeping, or they rely on crystal ball stuff. On the other hand, the WP:ONEEVENT arguments are well made and not refuted. No prejudice against a bold redirect being made from this title if someone wants to stick their necks out. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Shan Ju Lin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Ms Lin is a never-elected political candidate who attracted media attention only due to the perception that her candidacy for Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party was usual due to her ethnic background, and subsequently being disendorsed well before the election. As such, she does not meet the notability criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, WP:ONEEVENT appears to apply her as Ms Lin is only known for her short-lived One Nation candidacy. Nick-D (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Lin also attracted some attention for her KAP candidacy, as seen in the SBS Cantonese-language interview that I tried to add to her page. She's very newsy at the moment, but I'm unsure of her lasting importance. It might depend on what she does next. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  Strong redirect and merge to Pauline Hanson's One Nation for the time being *Keep I have changed my mind, as this story is far from over. From all reports she is still overseas, so has not been interviewed by the media yet. I think it is likely she is going to bounce back as an Independent or with another party. If so, it does not make much sense to merge the article into  Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Alternatively, if she is not notable for WP:POLITICIAN, she may just be notable in her own right as a divisive or controversial voice on the political scene. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Likely to bounce back as an Independent" sounds like WP:CRYSTAL. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion and opinion page, not an article in WP:Mainspace, where WP:CRYSTAL is meant to apply, so it is perfectly valid. I would say this is an unfolding event, that is still taking place in the media, so it is up to editors to keep track of it MatthewTStone (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC).
 * No it isn't. We don't have articles on people who might become notable in the future. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep she is very well reported. Torygreen84 (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. These people fade quickly from the scene and have no lasting significance. See also Articles for deletion/Stephanie Banister for a similar case (and note how non-notable she seems a few years later!). Frickeg (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong redirect and merge up to Pauline Hanson's One Nation similarly to 2013 Stephanie Banister interview. This person has been extremely widely reported BUT for a single brief event, which is hence very notable but very brief in nature.   TOOSOON for any standalone notabilty in their own right.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - and expand, please! I saw an article referring to her in the paper today, and wanted to find out more about her.  Was pleased that there was a Wikipedia page for her, but disappointed that it had so little information, and also disturbed that it had been tagged for deletion. Whatever her individual level of fame/importance/notability is, she is certainly very interesting at least as an example - an Asian (born) person who has lived in Australia through Pauline Hanson's first rise, and her recent resurrection.
 * Some more personal details would be useful, such as what sort of a teacher she is, and what sort of school she teaches at. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete she is only getting coverage for being a (controversial} candidate. previous consensus has shown that only elected politicians should get an article. she'll disappear from the news cycle if she doesn't get elected. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a one-day story about a disendorsed minor party political candidate and a BLP nightmare if kept. WP:ONEEVENT was created to discourage exactly these kinds of articles. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Under WP:One Event, the guideline suggests it may sometimes be appropriate to cover the event not the person. To quote: ...If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate..... As a Taiwanese person, joining a notoriously anti-Asian party (If you go by Hanson's maiden speech, One Nation was virtually founded on that platform); Lin's joining the party was a highly significant event within Australian culture. Note that she wasn't ejected for being Asian, but rather for other reasons. Also, she seems to have disappeared overseas for the time being, and the media were having trouble tracking her down, so her plans will become clearer once she returns. MatthewTStone (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Timmyshin (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I would say there is no way in the world this is a significant event. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you may be right – which kind of illustrates the point – there seems to be a bit of subjectivity allowed for in the WP:One Event guidelines, as to what constitutes 'significant'. MatthewTStone (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:POLITICIAN. No enduring significance. I would say there are about half-a-dozen similar candidates every election cycle who get similar amounts of coverage, don't think we need to cover them unless they actually get elected (or have some other major impact).  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  10:18, 21 January 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.