Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Brown (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Brown (2nd nomination)

Melissa Brown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable candidate. Ran three times for Congress and lost each time. She has nothing else to confer notability upon her. She's just an eye doctor. This is a tough one for me since I have contributed to the article myself. But honestly, she probably isn't going to run again much less get elected. So it makes sense to nix the article. Montco 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Question Judging from the last AFD, her notability was established by the publication 120 medical articles. Do those articles meet the Professor test? Copysan 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply She's run some consultancy called the "Center for Value-Based Medicine" for some years. Writing papers I am sure is part and parcel of the endeavor. However, it gets 100 or so google hits and her book [1] barely cracks the Amazon top 250,000. I can't verify the number of works that have been published and whether or not they are in mainstream journals. Personally, I doubt she would have cut it without the recent political activity and that is losing its relevance as time goes on. Montco 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This already survived an AFD where many people gave their opinion. Nothing has changed since then. Allon Fambrizzi 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
    • Comment Actually that's the problem, nothing has changed. Some of the keep votes were predicated on further evidence being provided of her notability in the medical field by User:DialUp. Its been a year and nothing has really been forthcoming. Montco 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I would consider someone who was competitive in a Congressional race quite notable. Jarfingle 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete She was the party nominee only twice; the first time she lost in the primary. She may have written articles and books, but there is nothing in the article about them. Unless someone improves the article to show notability through her research work... --Brianyoumans 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete she lost the election three times and is no longer politically active, thus she is completly unnotable--Juju 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her claim to notability is her list of medical articles, don't pick delete without even addressing that bit. Her political aspirations were discussed before, now this needs to be discussed instead. -Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If she should be kept as a notable author of articles, doesn't the article need to assert that notability? Her non-political career is barely mentioned in the article, and her writings not at all. Fan-1967 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Allon Fambrizzi. Charlie 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete unless evidence of the notability of her medical and research career is asserted with references to non-trivial reliable third parties by the time this AfD ends. Being a failed candidate for a US congressional seat is no more notable than being a failed candidate for governmental office in Bangladesh or Mauritius. --Charlene 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. Membership in the American Congress is much more powerful than governmental offices in those countries, and individual candidates here are much more widely publicized (i.e. more money is spent promoting them), whereas many newer democracies elect candidates via lists prepared by their party. Allon Fambrizzi 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
  • Strong Keep - per Allon Fambrizzi, TestPilot 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A major-party nominee for Congress is notable. If she's retired from politics, that means only that no one will be reading the article to get information on which to vote. It might well be of interest to someone interested in the history of the elections for the seat. Therefore, her alleged retirement doesn't entail nonnotability. JamesMLane t c 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep A defeated major party candidate for national office is notable, even if only nominated once. Its not as if we had hundreds of major parties. There will be 471 or 2 of them every two years, WP can manage that. Being one of the 500 or so most important people to lose an election is notability enough. DGG 05:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BIO she passes our notability guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:30, 10 December 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.