Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustus Cho

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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Augustus Cho

Augustus Cho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Cho did not prevail in the 4th District NC Congressional primary, which is what he was notable for. At this time I do not believe he meets notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. Gloriamarie (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What policy does this break. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Delete I believe that this article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. A Google search, however, of Augustus Cho with quotes returns over 5,000 results. I do believe that this passes WP:BK, seeing that he has five books written. I think an expansion of this article is necessary, along with some good ole' sources. I have changed my vote to delete in lieu of Dhartung's information. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Someone mentions below that the books are self-published on Lulu.com.-Gloriamarie (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep But expand to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Trees Rock^MyGoal 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You can expand the article, not the person's notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Only 14 hits in GoogleNews[1], insufficient coverage by WP:RS to pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. Also, a bit of BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Bunch of stuff which don't really add up. The media coverage that he has recieved has only been recent, in reaction to his lost election. His books don't appear to be that notable. Nor is county chairman of a political party that significant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I agree with PhoenixMourning that the subject might have more of a claim on WP:BK than as a politician. His political career at this point is nothing more than a footnote. But I disagree that five books grants him automatic notability. I think we would have to at least establish that any of the books pass the criteria for notability. Montco (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Yeah I didn't really read into his books. I was just browsing some sources that said he'd written five books. Whether or not those books are notable is beyond me... but I'm going to bet not. phøenixMøurning ( ^talk/_contribs ) 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have looked and not been able to find a concrete source for the five books (that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, just that I have not found it).--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO; candidates (especially those who lose a primary) are not inherently notable. His books are self-published using Lulu.com and I can find no independent and credible reviews thereof. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung, who sums up what I was able to find. Deor (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. He fails WP:POLITICIAN. And his "books" are out from vanity presses, failing WP:BK. Big deal: Some guy loses an election and then pays a vanity press for publication. This article has no business on WP. Qworty (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2008 (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.