Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X. Claire Yan

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X. Claire Yan

Delete, Yet another political hopeful who does not satisfy WP:BIO nor WP:C&E. Vectro 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Article claims she has New York Times best sellers. If this is accurate it should be kept. JoshuaZ 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough as candidate. Surely she has numerous newspaper articles during the campaign. The author role would qualify as well. Architectsf 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if claims of bestselling or newspaper articles can be substantiated, then I withdraw the nomination. Vectro 01:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if and only if the best selling claims can be sourced. Otherwise... RFerreira 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after research implying the best sellers bit is mistaken, and her candidacy is quite low profile. Her site seems to be down: http://www.claireforcongress.com , a web page endorsing her doesn't mention and anything about the best sellers, and neither does the Associated Press report on her candidacy. The latter also says: "She has not filed any campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission, signaling that she has not reached the $5,000 reporting threshold. By comparison, incumbent Doris Matsui has raised more than half a million dollars as of June 30." AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Her site came up, which explains the bestsellers thing. She writes that she edited books that became NYT bestsellers.[1] Ahem. Humbly don't think that meets WP:BIO. I added the references to the article, and otherwise wikified the thing. Still think she's not notable enough, though. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Dollar amounts raised in a campaign do not make notability, but this article seems notable enough independent of the author status. Cdcdoc 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cdcdoc, do you have any reliable citations that show she is notable, or is that just your opinion? Vectro 19:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She's the nominee of a major party in a Congressional race - that should be notability enough. The people who will be seeing her name on the ballot should be able to look her up on wikipedia and get some information. The page regarding notability of candidates indicates that if an article on a candidate is big enough not to be a stub, it should be kept. Rather than advocating deletion, why not add something to the page? HunterAmor 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That proposed guideline also says that information on a candidate should be so big as to not fit on the page for the race itself. Since the race page does not (yet) exist, it's a bit disingenuous to say that this information wouldn't fit. That same page also suggests that the main page for a candidate should be created "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article", and you conveniently ignored the part about the information boing independent and verifiable, which it's not here. Cheers, Vectro 16:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, this isn't just any district she's running in. The 5th California district means it is high profile even if she doesn't have much of a chance. People will be looking her up for specific information. Which leads me to my second point, she is more than just a 'candidate,' but a well known columnist and researcher from the Pacific Research Institute on her own. Finally, I have seen many candidate stubs worthy of deletion, and this one doesn't even come close to what the policy was probably intended to keep us from. In my view, there's plenty of doubt here which, in line with the Policy for Deletion, means we should abide by the presumption of keeping the article. Admiral 16:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Admiralwaugh (Admiral) has 2 contributions, the other one being making his user page link blue, just before commenting here. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As sophisticated and relevant a comment as I have ever seen, AnonEMouse, considering that it only means I have edited those pages *while logged in*. In any case, we're not competing for who has edited the most articles, we are discussing whether or not an article should be deleted from Wikipedia or grouped with another article. Although grouping seems like a decent option, I want to reiterate that the presumption for keeping articles ought to control in this case. Admiral 05:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how the 5th California Congressional district is more high profile than any others. I've been looking at the New York Times congressional political map [2] and see only 3 districts that are slightly competitive (neither are the 5th). The only other "high profile" CA race is the district that Tan Nguyen is running in due to that stunt his campaign pulled. --Marriedtofilm 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability...she does not meet it. Even under the proposed compromise regarding candidates she does not qualify (basically, article about the race THEN the candidates). Re: 'nominee of a major party in a Congressional race'...this does not bestow notability, especially in a district where the losing candidate is more of a ballot place holder than a candidate with a chance. As an example, look at a similarly Democratic stronghold district in Minnesota (MN-5)...please locate the article about the Republican candiate Frank Taylor or Daniel Mathias...the incumbent's victims since 1998. The discovery about her 'best selling' publishing...well, just further emphasizes the lack of notability.--Tony 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mnyakko. Fails WP:BIO and has only edited some books and it isn't even clear what books. JoshuaZ 02:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete She's not competitive against Doris Matsui – can't find a poll because it's so one-sided, but several political sites say Matsui's going to win easily on November 7. KrakatoaKatie 12:08, 24 October 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.