Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shay Chan Hodges


 * 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; The consensus appears clearly defined. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Shay Chan Hodges

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN Billays (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Shay Chan Hodges
 * Delete as I reviewed this yesterday and also planned to nominate, simply nothing at all actually convincing of substance and notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The sources are a little thin but it's Chan Hodges's candidacy that's drawn national attention to this race (Gabbard would be a shoo-in otherwise.) Especially with the NBC News profile, I think there's enough here. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being an as yet unwinning candidate in a party primary race is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article on some other basis prior to her candidacy, then she has to win the election (and I mean the big enchilada in November, not just the primary race) to become notable because of the candidacy itself. And the volume of RS coverage, which is almost entirely local to Hawaii and thus WP:ROUTINE since local coverage of local election races is expected, is not sufficient to give her the rare "notable because the campaign coverage exploded massively beyond the norm" exemption that Christine O'Donnell got. No prejudice against recreation if she wins the seat in November, but nothing here is enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Bearcat's arguments. I did take a look for sources.  her book is self-published, online with exclusively local coverage.  many of the sources in the sources on the page are in Maui Time Weekly, a very local paper in an island with a population smaller than the average suburb of Detroit, and a paper that she has been a contributor to. And the "national " coverage is meager and consists of brief mentions of the refusal of incumbent to debate her.  That leaves the NBC News.  Here: .  It ran on something called NBC Asian (they also have NBC black and NBC Latino) So, it's on a big netwrok, but it's not quite the same as national coverage.   This is the sole profile that is not local, however, like the local articles, it falls under routine coverage of an as yet unelected candidate.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't expect this will necessarily change your view of the sum here, but since AfD is often where the status of specific sources gets established, I want to note this strikes me as a troubling misreading of the NBC source. http://www.nbcnews.com/news currently has seven verticals presented in a row on its homepage, all in same font size: U.S., World, Investigations, Crimes & Courts, Asian America, Latino and NBCBLK. I don't think we'd interpret, for instance, NBC's crime coverage as "not quite the same as national" just because it's broken out from the U.S. coverage. So I'd urge us to treat the Asian America vertical equally, both because I think that's the most accurate interpretation of the source (if anything, NBC dedicating a whole staff to a subject area arguably underscores NBC's view of the topic's significance) and thus an WP:NPOV obligation (to defer to the secondary source, rather than inserting a wiki-editor's independent analysis), but additionally to make sure we don't accidentally imply or worse, in fact impose a standard that the Asian America material is discounted because of its Asianness. Want to emphasize I don't think there are bad intentions here; rather I'd advocate hewing closely to the source here to help us ward off unintended bias. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2016 (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.