Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yen Chou


 * 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. Overall it seems that consensus supports deleting the article in accordance with WP:POLITICIAN. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yen Chou

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Failed a local election. All media coverage about the person is about her bid for public office. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Failed candidates for political office can be notable providing they meet WP:N, they just don't benefit from the presumption of notability provided by WP:POLITICIAN. This article is well-sourced to independent reliable coverage demonstrating notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Honest question - does it matter that most of the media coverage is not even biographical, but about the city council elections? And within that set, most of the articles are about more than her own election.  They are about at least a few other elections.  Hers was only 1 in 51 elections that took place at the same time for city council seats.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable for the failed election bid, plus being nominated for and winning multiple professional awards. Ivanvector (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The failed bid was for city council. Even for a city the size of New York, that's still a local election, not state or national office. The general guideline is a city council seat is not notable, except in extreme circumstances. DarkAudit (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It doesn't matter what she was running for if she gets significant coverage in reliable independent sources as a result. The seat may not be notable but (according to the media) her bid for it apparently was. (Also it's worthing noting that this particular City Council covers a constituency of more than 8 million voters which means that of its 51 members, any two of them are proportionately representing more people than the entire population of the capital of Australia.)- DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage in secondary sources is almost entirely in the context of her candidacy and in the course of campaign coverage, making WP:POLITICIAN the relevant criterion, as opposed to using that candidacy as the starting point and doing in-depth coverage of her generally. In that light, a failed run for City Council does not make her notable. Ray  Talk 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not established under any category. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Angryapathy (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unsuccessful candidate for local office. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mild Keep Independent coverage seems fine, although I am not very familiar with WP:POLITICIAN137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Inadequate evidence of notability apart from her office-seeking. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete fails WP:POLITICIAN outright, but the listing on the "outstanding 50 Asian Americans in business" is a possible expansion route to save the article from deletion. If her achievements in business are worth noting and they are incorporated into the article, then I'd switch to keep. SMC (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and WP:POLITICIAN. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:50, 1 December 2009 (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.