Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Tran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. We're not looking for whether or not she won an election... We're looking for whether she meets WP:BIO, and as far as I can tell, BlNguyen is the only one who's made any progress towards answering that question. Next time this gets nominated, let's hear some real arguments instead of juvenile mudslinging. And Emcee, "sysop" and "admin" are the same thing. ;-) Grandmasterka 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Tran

Hong Tran was a minor Democratic candidate in Washington United States Senate election, 2006. She received some play in the local and national press because the incumbent Democratic senator, Maria Cantwell voted in favor of the authorization to use force that preceded the Iraq War and, while she is critical of the handling of the war, she remains in the "Stand down as the Iraqis stand up" camp and Tran is in the immediate withdrawal camp. Tran may also be the first Vietnamese-American to run for US Senate. However, so far she has received little more than 5% of the Democratic primary vote while Cantwell garnered just shy of 91% of the vote. Bobblehead 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete as per nom. Substance of article are election comments. Minor candidate blow outs are common not notable. Election is covered with own article. Rentir 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

KEEP She is a newsworthy person that ran a campaign that was concerned with the issues of her community. She did not run for fame or glory, but to make a difference. Yes, she was unsuccessful, but mentioning an Asian American contributions to the American melting pot and her desire to and become an influentical candidate has spoken alot about how important she is in the Asian community and the American community in her state.

Bnguyen 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete Tran seems like a talented, accomplished and admirable person, but she has no meaningful level of support or following, receiving roughly 5% of the vote in a party primary. She is a not a leader in the state of Washington. Her limited voting support seems to have been a protest against Cantwell, and not support for Tran specifically. At best, an article about Tran is of local interest, and not appropriate for Wikipedia (there is already an article about the Washington United States Senate election, 2006, as well as an article about Maria Cantwell). --Nottingham 02:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Nottingham Bwithh 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete—per nom. If she'd won, she'd still warrant the space. Williamborg (Bill) 03:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I have been the primary author of this article for the past few months. The deletion proposals seem to be in regard to the notability of the subject. Hong Tran was cited in multiple respected publications as Maria Cantwell's main challenger for the Democratic nomination, and was regarded as the standard bearer for the solidly anti-war contingent of the Democratic party in the primary. She recieved a considerable amount of press during the primary campaign, including mentions in multiple articles and one feature article in the Washington Times (in Washington, D.C.), a mention in the New York Times, articles in major newspapers throughout the state of Washington, and feature audio interviews on NPR as well as others. She received endorsements from the Democratic caucuses in four of the legislative districts in the state, including the sole endorsement in Cantwell's home district, the 32nd LD. She is the first Vietnamese-American to campaign for Senate in the state of Washington, and likely in the entire country, according to the Northwest Asian Weekly newspaper. She may continue to influence the outcome of this U.S. Senate election with her endorsement or lack of it, and any other words or actions during the general election, and she may also remain a public figure and run for another office. Hong Tran also passes the Google test, with about 16,800 hits for a search of ["hong tran" senate].

Both Nottingham in particular (Bobblehead as well) have put a lot of weight on the fact that Tran only got about 5% of the vote in her second-place finish in the primary. I have argued that the size of the vote alone does not determine the significance of a campaign or a candidate. Ralph Nader never even got 3% of the vote, yet was a notable presidential candidate. Neither raised or spent lots of money; both ran grassroots campaigns for the purposes of making statements about the political system, about the parties, to influence the political debate and party platforms, and to allow voters an avenue to express their conscience. Some people understand the significance of this; other people don't. I would consider a pro/con style insertion into the Hong Tran article where both sides of this could be heard (with propertly balanced language); I think this is a common way of dealing with these sorts of controversies in Wikipedia.

It should also be noted that the article has received considerable modifications (about 110 edits) since Nottingham began contributing five days ago on the morning of Sept. 19th (which also happens to be the day the primary election occurred, or the night before, in Washington state time). Bobblehead made this AfD request in response to ongoing "edit wars," mostly over was constitutes NPOV or relevant info. In response to what I consider uncivil treatment and improper edits, I have been attempting to seek neutral mediation for over the past few days. User: False Prophet from the Mediation Cabal had accepted the case for mediation just prior to Bobblehead's AfD request. Assuming the AfD request ends up being evaluated, I will be posting a link here to my preferred version of the article, such that it will show some of the information and citations that have been either deleted or severely modified in the name of "NPOV", "Streamlining", significance, privacy, or any number of other reasons why this article has been trimmed. In some cases, supporting info has been trimmed away and then the original content subsequently deleted for lack of support.Emcee 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically the AFD was submitted because the edit war was due to a question of notability of the subject. What better way to determine notability than send it through AFD? If it survives the AFD, then the subject is notable, if it doesn't survive, then the subject isn't notable. Either way, problem solved. --Bobblehead 06:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A large amount of the edit war was over disagreement over statements that were alleged NPOV problems. The article was supposedly in the process of being adjusted to better conform to NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BIO standards; I had been trying to work with Nottingham too cool off, set some ground rules, and seek mediation, while still recieving uncivil treatment such as here, where he says, "You have no sense of facts or standards, and you do not understand the difference between facts and opinion. . . Grow up, learn to read and learn basic academic standards." Your response to this was to put up the article for deletion, rather than noting Nottingham's uncivil statements, trying to defuse the situation, and seeking some external mediation. I don't see "ending editor dispute" as a grounds for deletion in WP:DEL.Emcee 18:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; seems notable enough given the low bar we have established on WP. I'd hate to see a WP where ultra-minor league porn stars are notable, but a non-joke primary candidate in a Senate race isn't. Sdedeo (tips) 04:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Um, there are those of us who are pushing for a higher bar too. Any ultra-minor league porn star will most likely fail WP:PORNBIO. And I don't see why political candidates are inherently more notable. We have plenty of ultra-minor league politicans and political candidates who are due for AFD too Bwithh 05:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that a non-joke candidate for Senate is more important than many who might pass "pornbio". Sdedeo (tips) 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think most minor party candidates who run for office with no hope of even getting a small slice of the vote take themselves pretty seriously too Bwithh 05:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If humility was a requirement for notability, WP would be pretty

e! Sdedeo (tips) 06:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And how does one characterize a 'joke candidate'? The WA Dem primary had a person named Mike the Mover that runs in whatever is the highest available position that year and another candidate whose campaign stump was the need to create habitable space stations to house the planet's growing population. Neither one of these candidates consider themseleves a 'joke candidate'. Both also get more hits via a google search than Hong Tran. Not that I think google searches are a good measure of notability or anything. --Bobblehead 06:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because habitable space stations guy doesn't think he's a joke doesn't mean he's right! I think it's pretty clear that Hong Tran is hardly a joke candidate: she ha[s/d] a serious platform. Anyway, in the absence of a consensus policy on candidates, I think erring on the side of inclusion is pretty harmless. Indeed, the whole initiation of this debate -- Tran supporters and detractors fighting over facts about the campaign -- seems to indicate that there is more interest in Tran than, say, US-54. Sdedeo (tips) 06:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Technically the high edit count is due to 2 overzealous editors. Just because 2 people disagree over the content of an article doesn't mean the article is notable, especially when one of the editors is doing so because of the lack of notability.;) One only need to meander over to WP:LAME to see that editors sometimes fight over the silliest of things. --Bobblehead 06:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, 3 overzealous editors, including Bobblehead who has contributed almost 30 of those edits over the past 5 days. Another correction: Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson does not get more hits than Tran in Google([1] 772 you include the word 'senate' and [2] 9,460 if you don't), and neither does Mike the Mover, despite having run for office multiple times: [3] 520 if you include "senate" in the search term, (like I did with Hong Tran above), so that you're not including the "Mike the Mover" moving business and others; still only [4]20,400 without. Compare to Hong Tran with senate in the search term (16,800)[5] and without (37,100)[6] Emcee 18:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I count at least ten non-bot editors who have worked on this article. Sdedeo (tips) 18:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The desire to group Hong Tran in with "joke" candidates like Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson and Mike the Mover is a fairly obvious stretch; I'm not sure why Bobblehead would still try to advance that theory. Someone who campaigns about the Iraq War, PATRIOT Act, free trade agreements, etc. is clearly a serious candidate compared to those whose voter pamphlet entries talk about space colonization or going to war with British Columbia, neither of which has to do with the Democratic party platform or anything else that is considered a significant issue in this election. There was also an entreaty from the Cantwell campaign to Hong Tran to have her join their campaign (which she interpreted as a job offer, based on the context of the call right after the other challenger Mark Wilson had been hired), and which all of the political commentators that I've seen have regarded as a "buy-out" offer (as they still regard the Wilson hire). This is further evidence of her political significance; I severely doubt that Cantwell offered jobs to Nelson or Mover.Emcee 19:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I also forgot to mention that Nelson and Mover both: had no campaign websites (albeit some almost uncommented blogs), reported no campaign contributions to the FEC, made no campaign appearances, gave no interviews, and had no feature articles on them in the press (local or national). Tran had all of those. Emcee 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Sdedeo. Mangojuicetalk 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PeterChehabi 05:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sdedeo. NeoFreak 05:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability, what there was of it, ended with the primary election. Fan-1967 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ralph Nader has done a heck of a lot more than run for president. Gazpacho 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but his presidential campaigns alone make him notable. Both Tran and Nader did prior work involving federal laws and policies, leading directly to their getting involved as candidates.Emcee
  • Keep. per Sdedeo.--Stuart D. 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete She lost by 85%? All notability at this point is null and void. Wildthing61476 16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nottingham and Fan-1967. If you're just one of those "famous for 15 minutes" types, you don't deserve a full Wikipedia article, especially after those 15 minutes are up. She probably deserves a small section in Washington United States Senate election, 2006, though. --Aaron 17:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • When reviewing this article for deletion please note the recent edit history, such as Nottingham's reversion at 04:42, 25 September 2006 that was his fourth in 24 hours, violating WP:3RR. Compare alongside the previous version here to get some idea of the nature of the deletions that have been going on by those who want the article to be deleted, or regardless of the current state of the article make sure you read a recent copy of the "non-Nottingham" version here.Emcee 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have read the "non-Nottingham" version, but it doesn't convince me to change my vote, I'm afraid. --Aaron 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Failed Senate candidate, does not meet WP:BIO in my opinion. The references in the article are all local sources... there just isn't enough here to establish a strong case per WP:BIO in my opinion.--Isotope23 19:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't know why the push to delete this article bugs me so much. Perhaps because the people who started this deletion push also have strong POVs re: Tran as evidenced by their editing histories. In any case, WP:BIO links to a candidates criteria page where one finds the only statement on notability: "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." It's clear from reading the article that Tran has received significant press coverage from state sources to merit inclusion. Sdedeo (tips) 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment You earlier talked about Tran's "detractors". Who are her "detractors"? Who has made negative statements about Tran? I have expressed no opposition to her as a person. You now talk about "strong POVs". I do have a POV that she is "a talented, accomplished and admirable person" (I said that at the top of this page). I have never made any edits that say that she is not talented or lacks the ability to succeed in government. That isn't the issue. The issue is that she clearly isn't notable. She lost in a party primary in a landslide, by more than 85% of the vote. There is no evidence that she had special or unique support -- even the newspaper quote of a local Democrat who gave her a shared endorsement was "it wasn't a slap against Cantwell, but also it was kind of a feel-good vote, in that at least (people thought) 'I've said something about what's going on in Iraq' and stuff. It wasn't even about 'we shouldn't be there' but rather about how (the war) has been handled."! Notice that he didn't even mention anything about Tran. Tran's own campaign web site does even appear to have been updated since several weeks before the primary vote. She isn't a leader of the anti-Iraq War movement in the Democratic party. She simply filled the role of "not Cantwell" in the primary, and even in that role she barely received 5% of the vote. --Nottingham 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Your continual references to Tran supporters as being in bad faith, being biased, being agenda-driven, &c. &c., and references to Tran as "not a serious candidate", "not the preferred candidate of WA voters", led me to believe you had a dog in the fight. I apologize for not assuming good faith. While I'm hardly an "inclusionist" when it comes to AfD (check my edits), I confess I am surprised that, instead of trying to resolve differences, you continually revert other editors (who are hardly blameless, of course), and then push to delete the entire article. Sdedeo (tips) 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that a lot of Nottingham's criticisms have been directed at me, even more than Hong Tran, and that the edit war seemed to be as much about winning/losing as it was about the interests of Wikipedia and its articles. I am not an innocent party to the edit war, but I don't think this is an appropriate direction for the dispute (as I mentioned, I was trying to seek mediation and defuse this). I do believe Nottingham's edits and deletions in the article themself evidence a strong POV, even if it was founded in something other than an evaluation of the candidate. Examples: adding, "Tran has not identified any Democratic candidates who are more electable than Cantwell, who won the Democratic primary with an overwhelming majority of 91% of the vote."[7]; "Nevertheless, Democratic voters supported Cantwell overwhelmingly in the primary, with Cantwell receiving 91% of the vote, and Tran receiving less than 5%."[8]; and repeatedly deleting the info box and date of birth, on the justification that is was necessary to protect the candidate's (and her husband's) privacy [9][10] which had Nottingham edit summaries as follows:
"(Info box is repeated in bio. Should her husband, who to my knowledge is not a public figure, have his name listed on Wikipedia?)"
"(Why is Tran's date of birth being repeated openly on Wikipedia? Perhaps her age is relevant, but DOB can lead to identity theft.)".
I don't know what else to say about that.Emcee 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You said "I don't know what else to say about that." It seems that what you should be saying is "I'm sorry, I didn't know Wikipedia policy". From Wikipedia's own guidelines: "Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date." See Biographies of living persons. I had suggested that just Tran's age was appropriate instead of her birthday. That suggestion is in line with Wikipedia policy. You appear to make light of the issue of potential identity theft. However, I agree with Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter, and I follow them. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the AfD, although it is another example of how you ignore Wikipedia guidelines. --Nottingham 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the talk or edit summary, DOB is on the public secretary of state election filings, her husband's name is on the current campaign web page. Both are on this older campaign page:[11]. Political candidates make themselves public figures and a lot of information is known about them. The reason I mentioned this is because the edit war that birthed this AfD has become relevant to the AfD debate itself, but I will agree to leave it to the interested reviewers to take a look at the edit history and talk page for the article in question from here on out.Emcee 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand why everything you write on this page ends up being about me. You are contacting people all over Wikipedia about me. You are making this AfD about me. You repeatedly make unsupported statements about me. I have already complained about your cyber-stalking or Wikipedia-stalking or however one would characterize it. --Nottingham 16:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


    • Comment The references are not all local sources (and some references have been deleted by the editors who want the article deleted). Here is the initial mention (see paragraphs 4-6) in the Washington Times (that's Washington, D.C., not Washington state); and the recent feature on Tran in the same paper. She's not Ned Lamont, but then again, she's not a millionaire and there is a much stronger Republican challenger in Washington state than in Connecticut.Emcee 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, The Washington Times mention is not enough to satisfy me. Sorry, I just don't see any notability here. If it is any consolation though, I think Ms. Tran will fare better here than she does in an actual election; I'm predicting a "no consensus".--Isotope23 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

*Weak delete per nom. It's really hard to even give more than abstain, but I can't just say "delete". --Dennisthe2 20:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm strinking my above vote and, in light of Nottingham's violation of 3RR, switching to Strong Keep. This is an edit war issue. --Dennisthe2 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain, and commentary retracted. My apologies to Nottingham, I didn't have all fo the facts before I shot my mouth off. Not knowing what to make of this mess, though, I'll remain neutral. --Dennisthe2 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Washington Times articles alone satisfy WP:BIO's requirement for significant non-trivial press coverage. AfD is not for resolving edit wars. --Roninbk t c # 20:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Seattle P-I articles are largely irrelevant, since in this case it's just a local paper covering a local election, and the Washington Times article doesn't even mention Tran until the sixth paragraph. "Significant non-trivial press coverage" is supposed to mean entire articles about the individual, not articles where the person happens to be mentioned somewhat. --Aaron 21:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, please take a look at this feature in the Washington Times. I think that's what you were looking for.Emcee 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You're right; I was looking at the wrong article on the WT site. It's still not enough to convince me to change my vote personally, but this particular AfD is no big deal to me, and it looks like it's going to end with no consensus defaulting to keep, which is fine as far as I'm concerned. --Aaron 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment The irony is amusing, as The Washington Times is a very conservative paper that likes tweaking Democrats (just like some liberal media like tweaking Republicans) by trying to create news when there is none. Regardless, The Washington Times article in question is the only article that has multiple references to Tran that appeared in a newspaper published outside the state of Washington. However, the article mentions nothing unique or notable about Tran except that her claim that she was not being treated fairly by the state and national Democratic parties, and that Tran is opposed to the Iraq War. The article even claims that voters for Tran appear to be making protest votes against Cantwell by voting for Tran, i.e., not voting for Tran because of Tran's own qualities. "But several voters here said they will issue a "protest" vote for Mrs. Tran, a lawyer with a nonprofit agency, to send a message they are frustrated with their senator." There already are Wikipedia articles on the election and on Cantwell. There is nothing notable about Tran that merits a Wikipedia article. --Nottingham 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Even as you keep raising the bar for notability (now it is "more than one newspaper article with multiple references outside of the state"), you make factually incorrect statements. How about The New York Times [12]? Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Where have I "rais[ed] the bar for notability"? Where did I ever set a standard for notability? At least it's a good straw man for you to use. Yes, as that NY Times article had TWO instances of the name "Tran" in it, even though the article isn't about Tran (it was published BEFORE the primary, yet it was all about Cantwell's pending race with McGavick). I suppose my comment "The Washington Times article in question is the only article that has multiple references to Tran" should be modified slightly. The Washington Times article is the only out of state newspaper article that focuses on Tran or does more than mention her in passing. --Nottingham 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, for awhile you decided that anyone with less than 5% of the vote was not-notable -- until you discovered that Tran had 5.1%. Why don't you tell us what would make Tran notable? You should also tell us why an articles about the primary election which acknoledge Tran to be a "key opponent" count as "passing mention" only. Sdedeo (tips) 22:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Are you Emcee's Sock Puppet? I notice that Emcee has neither a normal User Page nor a normal User Talk page (the User Talk page for Emcee says "Welcome from Redwolf24"). Since Emcee just made the exact same false claim as you, it makes one wonder. You just made the false claim "for awhile you decided that anyone with less than 5% of the vote was not-notable". I never made such a statement or had such a standard, yet Emcee made the exact same spurious claim as you, and was unable to support it when called on it. It could be that you simply read what Emcee writes and repeat it. But, then again, you seem to have an inordinate interest in this topic, just like Emcee does, so, if the shoe fits . . . Regardless, all this has nothing to do with the AfD, which I didn't even initiate. It seems you are more concerned with personal animus now. Suit yourself. --Nottingham 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[13] is what I was referring to, but while you lecture others on wikipedia policy, your complete, unapologetic inability to WP:AGF against both me and others you are fighting with makes it useless for me to engage you in further discussion. Sdedeo (tips) 23:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Nottingham: My user page is empty because I've never taken the time to put anything on it; not an uncommon thing (I see yours is empty too!). My user talk has a "Welcome" message from Redwolf24, who is a long-standing user, sysop apparently, who was welcoming me to Wikipedia when I created my account in August 2005; this is also extremely common to see. If I were to theorize about sock puppets, I think it would be more likely that I would be Sdedeo's sock puppet rather than vice versa, since he has a lot more contributions on a lot more articles than I do, and also created his account before me. But it would be bad form to accuse myself of sockpuppetry with no other reasonable evidence that I am in fact a sock puppet[14], so I won't accuse myself of that. By the way, if you mess up on Wikipedia, most people won't hold it against you if you just apologize and/or undo it.Emcee 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Roninbk. This is a no-brainer for notability, with significant coverage in nationally-recognized newspapers (including at least one non-local one in the Washington Times). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- some more coverage. The Seattle P-I is the "second largest" paper in the state, and covered Tran; the Seattle Times, the largest, I discover on a quick google wrote:
Cantwell's key opponent in the primary, Hong Tran, a seemingly grounded, competent attorney, has raised a measly $18,000, with $8,800 remaining after expenses as of the end of June. The incumbent at the same time had raised $10 million, with $6.4 million cash on hand.
There are about half a dozen articles on the primary, all of which mention Tran prominently. BTW, it appears that the anti-war movement in WA supported a guy called Wilson more than Tran -- I guess we should expect a fight to delete him as well? Sdedeo (tips) 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, final statistic -- Tran's campaign seems to have generated 93 news articles [15]. In addition to the Washington Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, there are also articles in the Seattle Times and The Olympian (describing her as the "only significant" primary challenger), and mentions in the Washington Post, Forbes, Baltimore Sun, Reuters, and a host of attention on major national blogs like TPMCafe, Media Matters, etc. etc. Sdedeo (tips)<;/small> 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Despite her low showing in the polls, she was a legitimate candidate for a major party for a significant post. She got coverage throughout WA media as well as national. We're still in the 2006 election cycle and I think that, for now at least, she is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Though, I'm pretty sure that (unless she runs for another office), in another year or two, my vote would go the other way. --- The Bethling(Talk) 22:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep. Numerous, non-trivial, references in local and national media. Seems clear enough to me. AmitDeshwar 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable primary candidate - got quite a bit of attention. Rebecca 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now' I think that what you do with these types of articles is to keep them untill the next election. Then, if she is participating, you can keep this article. But if a year passes, and this was the last people heard of her, she becomes an irrelivant person on the global/national scale. Wikipedia's False Prophet holla at me Improve Me 03:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As meeting WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 04:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Reviewers, when evaluating these arguments, please note that Nottingham has now been blocked for 24h for continuing personal attacks against User:Rebecca and User:Snottygobble, a sysop and admin, respectively. Rebecca was trying to advise him on his multiple reversions on this article; Snottygobble was attempting to advise him about personal attacks on Rebecca and then on himself, after which Nottingham blanked his own talk page and then Snottygobble blocked him. Nottingham had made the most edits to this article in the last several days, and was a prime motivator for this AfD nomination. In my opinion, this supports my argument that this article/edit war should have been in a mediation process rather than submitted to AfD, and should be kept rather than deleted.Emcee 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This page has become absurd. Bobblehead nominated the article for deletion, not me. Emcee has made many edits to the article in question for several weeks. Emcee has turned this page (the AfD) into a vendetta against me (not that it matters much, after all, it is just an Internet discussion with people who don't know each other). Emcee has carried on and on and on, including hearsay and false accusations of personal attacks, to the point where he/she has created the false impression that I started the AfD when in fact all I did was write a comment. Period. That's it. One comment. It was only after numerous comments by several people back and forth that I offered responses. Absurdity. This page is about deleting a page about a person who lost by more than 85% of the vote in a political primary, about whom there is nothing noteworthy, and it is a situation where the election itself has a page that references the person. This page is not about me, it is not about Emcee, it is not about Bobblehead. It is an AfD for the Hong Tran entry started by Bobblehead. That's all this page is for. I have made it clear on this page and the Tran entry and its Talk page that I respect Tran's talents, accomplishments, and character. However, those are not the issue. The issue is notability, and Tran is simply not notable. Incidentally, the Tran page itself as Emcee has edited it violates the spirit and arguably the strict letter of Wikipedia's own guidelines by revealing DOB and spouse's name. No one on this page even seemed to care about the privacy and safety of Tran or her husband, even though Wikipedia explicitly mentions this in its guidelines. But, there are far greater tragedies in the world that the existence of a article on a non-notable person.

--Nottingham 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like to express public thanks to Dennisthe2 for apparently realizing that at least some if not most of what Emcee has written on this page is not accurate. Quoting Dennisthe2 from above: "I didn't have all fo the facts before I shot my mouth off. Not knowing what to make of this mess, though, I'll remain neutral." As one can see, Dennisthe2 has retracted his vote to Keep the page. --Nottingham 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - You're welcome, but a thank you would have sufficed. I will point out that my retraction is in light of the mess in here, the AfD. After much thought, I'd rather keep, but my vote remains to abstain in light of this insanity. It'll teach me to cast votes for politicians, I guess. =) --Dennisthe2 05:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I will leave it up to any interested readers to take a look at Nottingham's talk page (make sure to view the history, since he has already partially or completely blanked it in 3 times in recent days, including twice since his block was ended) and the edit history/talk page of the Hong Tran article where he encouraged deletion on Sept 22 and immediately prior to the edit-war-motivated request on Sept 25. I never said that he submitted the AfD nomination himself, but that he was (I quote), "a prime motivator for this AfD nomination." I agree with Dennisthe2 that this history is a mess, and I assume most people don't have the time to dig through it all. I cited Nottingham's recent block and surrounding behavior because I believe it is a quick way for reviewers assess the credibility of his arguments. I would also like to note that although he is now restraining himself from direct personal attacks on others, I have witnessed no remorse for his previous actions, and the sarcasm that remains in his communications with longstanding user and admin Snottygobble I do not believe are in line with community standards of respectful communication. Emcee 00:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you need to take a deep breath and step back. This page is about an AfD for the Hong Tran entry. That's all. You have no respect for the AfD process and no respect for the Wikipedia community when you bring in other matters. It appears that you believe that by filling this page with non-AfD matters that you can stop the article from being deleted. I cannot understand why else you keep diverting the subject of this AfD page. --Nottingham 00:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In light of discussion over the past few hours - in particular, Emcee's concurrance with my previous statement - would it be appropriate for this AfD to end and a new one for the article to begin? --Dennisthe2 05:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My concurrence was that the history of the Hong Tran article was a mess, due to the edit war. It was heavily redacted during the days leading up to the AfD request, which made it difficult for people to see what the article actually consisted of, and how much press she had gotten. I'm sure it's also difficult for people to sort through all the issues of the edit war itself, which is why it should have been in mediation instead. If you were saying something different than that, then I don't concur. I certainly don't concur with Nottingham's analysis of what you wrote -- just because you said you didn't have all the facts, I didn't conclude that you thought I had given inaccurate information. If you do, please specify, because I believe that everything I have said is accurate. I'm not dealing with Nottingham's allegations anymore at this point because I don't feel it is productive; I would be surprised if anyone who views his talk page history, with it's repeated blanking of admin comments, would give his allegations any credit at this point. My contention was and is that this AfD never should have been nominated in the first place, because it was an edit war issue. In that sense, I agree with your second opinion (the switch to Strong Keep, because it is an edit war issue). I think it is appropriate for the AfD to end, as long as the article is kept; but there is no reason why another one should be started. I would expect that a second AfD would have similar results anyway. I also think that this AfD has shown that there is a significant number of people who think that Hong Tran has sufficent notability to meet WP:BIO, which is the technical basis upon which Bobblehead was submitting it, even if the practical purpose was to end the edit war. Anyhow, it seems that the whole purpose of AfD (since we are in the process, regardless of whether it was proper or not) is to reach consensus. I will propose Keep, with a scheduled re-evaluation after the Nov. 2008 U.S. Congressional elections. Emcee 06:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You said "I also think that this AfD has shown that there is a significant number of people who think that Hong Tran has sufficent notability to meet WP:BIO". Of course, this ignores that you poisoned the AfD process by making this page about me, and constantly talking about me. Several Keep votes reference directly or indirectly your constant remarks about me on this page. You don't like me. That's fine with me. You appear obsessed with me, and I am raising complaints with Wikipedia about your Wikipedia stalking of me. I suggested, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for resolution of disputes (namely that involved parties should try resolution first amongst themselves), that you start an entry called somethinig like "Nottingham is a bad person". Put it on my User Page if you prefer. --Nottingham 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


    • Now, that I didn't realize - my statement was in light of the mess here, not there. But, you do have a point, so I'd have to concur with you, at any rate. Incidentally, we need to be careful with figuring out who concurs with who at this point, lest we grow even more confused. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that regardless of an edit war over the article (which Emcee is as much to blame for as Nottingham) the AFD submission was about the lack of notability for Hong Tran outside of the Senate race. It should also be pointed out that the content in the Senate race portion of Tran's article is already covered in the Senate Race article and if that duplication is removed, there's nothing even remotely notable about her. I proposed on the Washington Senate race talk page prior to the start of the edit war that the article (and that of the other primary losers) be either turned into redirects to the Senate race or submitted for AFD. I'm also curious of the opinion of othes on how better to handle a content dispute that is based solely on the notability of the article subject than to send it through AFD? This isn't the first time an AFD has been sent through in the midst of an edit war and many of them have been deleted at the end of the AFD. --Bobblehead 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a more complete (but concise) history of the edit war/AfD request from my standpoint, for Dennisthe2 or anyone else who is interested. I believe this recounting of events can be confirmed by anyone who reads through the talk pages and edit histories involved. Emcee

[edit] Start a New AfD Fresh without Making Nottingham the Subject

Emcee keeps making an AfD about the Hong Tran entry a discussion about me (Nottingham). That has grossly tainted the AfD process -- after Emcee's repeated mentioning of my name, a few comments came in as Keep that implicitly or explicitly mentioned me, clear evidence that the AfD process has been tainted by Emcee's repeated discussion of me on this page instead of the merits of the AfD subject itself. --Nottingham 12:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Dennisthe2, who seems to be an active and neutral Wikipedia observer, has the right idea. Simply start a new AfD fresh. I will gladly not participate other than reprinting my original comment (see top of page; in brief, Hong Tran seems to be talented, accomplished, and admirable, but not notable and therefore the AfD should be deleted and redirected to the election entry). I suggest that Emcee participate in a new AfD without mentioning me at all. If Emcee would like to write 25 paragraphs on the new AfD, as long as they don't mention me, then he/she should do so. I told Dennisthe2 I had no concern with how he/she voted before and during his vote changes. That is clear public record. Nevertheless, I suggest to Emcee that Emcee should show more respect to Dennisthe2 and to other Wikipedia community members by treating the AfD as an AfD, and not make misleading comments about any person's stance to Keep, Delete or Abstain. Emcee is welcome, as far as I am concerned, to start a Wikipedia entry called "Why Nottingham is a Bad Person" or to put such entries on my User Page. I have no quarrel with that. However, I do not understand why Emcee has taken it up him/herself to apparently misrepresent Dennisthe2's opinion. Dennisthe2 has said his choice is Abstain. If he chooses to make his opinion known as Keep or Delete, I am sure he will do that. However, it seems inaccurate and misleading for anyone to quote his prior opinions of Delete and Keep. --Nottingham 12:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what benefit would come from an immediate restart of the AFD process. The mess that this AFD became is still fresh in the involved parties' minds and a restart will only extend the agony. I'm content to let this AFD run it's course (and probably end up in no consensus) and wait until after the November election to send it through AFD again. --Bobblehead 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that most people evaluated this AfD based on the edit war or Nottingham's actions anyway. The only "Keepers" who even mentioned it are Roninbk (who mainly addressed the media coverage), and Sdedeo (who wasn't even addressing it in his initial "Keep" analysis). If anything, the edit war only biased reviewers unfairly against the article, as the first several viewers only got to see it in its highly redacted state (before Rebecca reverted it back to a semi-complete version). The last several reviewers all gave a "Keep" rating. Personally, I think re-sending through AfD in November would be an abuse of the deletion process; I'll leave it to the closing admin to weigh in on this. Emcee 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Commment This current AfD should be allowed to conclude as it stands and if the result of this AfD is "no consensus" and someone (preferably someone not involved in an edit war over this article) choses to renominate it for AfD in a couple of months, it would not be an abuse of the deletion process.--Isotope23 13:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Once again, Emcee continues in personal attacks on me, instead of discussing the AfD. Emcee talked about "Nottingham's actions anyway". There is no reason I should be the subject of this page, and Emcee is presenting a biased, non-NPOV attack by characterizing my "actions". He/she consistently violates the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia guidelines with constant attacks on me on this page, and for turning an AfD into an attack page against me. --Nottingham 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to point out Nottingham's use of the term NPOV above. WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to WP articles. Talk pages, AfDs, etc. are places where we express our own viewpoints on the article content and related issues. Saying that my contributions to an AfD page are non-NPOV is meaningless. Furthermore, I am absolutely not issuing any personal attacks against Nottingham; I have noted specific instances of uncivility and his blocks, and pointed people to his writings on various talk pages so that they can review them for themselves to help evaluate the credibility of his arguments. Emcee 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What are you talking about? NPOV is a common abbreviation that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses NPOV in the context of its guidelines. Regardless, Emcee has repeatedly made false, non-NPOV accusations against me up and down this page. Instead of it being an AfD, it has become Emcee's diatribe against me. Emcee has not stopped stalking me all over Wikipedia, and leaving messages all over Wikipedia about me. It is sad and pitiful. I offered a solution that Emcee start a page with a title such as "Reasons Why Nottingham is a Bad Person". Instead, Emcee persists in posting non-NPOV attacks on me instead of letting the AfD be an AfD. If this AfD is "Keep", then there should be another one, as per the suggestions above, right afterwards that should not include Emcee's editorializing about me and attacks on me. I am not the subject, the Tran article is. If the AfD is "Delete", then obviously there is no need for another AfD. --Nottingham 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess that's why when I search for NPOV on Google and click on the links in the first few pages of results, the only link I can find that has "nothing to do with Wikipedia" (or later wiki variations like Wikinews or Wikibooks) is for the "North Pend Oreille Valley" Lions Club. Try again... Emcee 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh for the LOVE of GOD!!! This is Wikipedia, not high school. Both of you, take the petty arguments to User talk, or somewhere else. We do not want to hear it!!! --Roninbk t c # 09:01, 30 September 2006 (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.