Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kim (politician)

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. Sandstein 17:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Kim (politician)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable unelected politician candidate. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won — the primary notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates are accepted as notable only if (a) they have a credible claim to preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy (Cynthia Nixon), or (b) they can credibly claim that their candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But neither of those things are demonstrated here, and the article depends very heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his own self-published campaign website about himself and YouTube videos and routine candidate directories that have profiles on every candidate in every district — and even the few genuinely "strong" sources, such as The New York Times and Asian American Policy Review, still just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him, which is not the kind of "coverage" we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I substantially contributed to this article, but unfortunately agree with Bearcat. When I came across it it had essentially zero non-primary sources. I fixed that, but yes, the sources I found are insufficient. I was going to do another run through today to see if I missed anything, but if Bearcat didn't see anything else I'm confident I did not. I live in Kim's district currently and will be voting for him; if he wins (he's a longshot, but it's not impossible) we can reassess. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing does not show the GNG being passed. It's just WP:TOOSOON for him. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's essentially a campaign ad, considering he won't be notable if he loses the election. If he wins we can restore it immediately. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidate for congress. If he wins in November he will merit an article, not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 34. As mentioned by others, candidates largely do not meet WP:NPOL. If Kim wins in November, we can re-create the article. Bkissin (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be consistent with other positions I have taken, this should be redirected to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 34 as a usual and appropriate outcome under WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. My position is not bolded because with now 14 days until the election, and notwithstanding concerns about Wikipedia being a repository of campaign brochures, I think we should refrain from deleting subjects within the last few days before an election when they might become elected to a position that confers the presumption of notability. --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a rule that we couldn't delete articles about unelected candidates X days before the election, then every candidate in the United States could just suddenly bumrush Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on Day X for that last minute push of extra publicity — and, in fact, they'd actually be free to do that another seven days before Day X, since such an article still wouldn't be deletable if the closure date of an AFD discussion would land inside the moratorium period. So regardless of how close the election is or isn't, we still have to treat articles like this exactly the same way as we would at any other time, and can't impose a temporary moratorium on discussing candidate articles just because the election is within a matter of weeks. We do have a little bit of wiggle room at the back end about leaving an AFD discussion open for an extra day or two if its eligibility for closure falls within one or two days of election day (and even then only because a discussion might naturally take that long to actually get closed anyway), but there isn't and rightly shouldn't be a moratorium on initiating the discussion at any time. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember this back and forth a couple years ago. I did not offer a "procedural keep" bolded comment, as I do not disagree with opening the discussion, but I do believe that anyone who considers closing a deletion discussion within a few weeks of election day should take the date of the election into account, whether that is a relist or not closing until after the election. --Enos733 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with edits / Migrate to Draft At the moment, there is no debate over the fact that the article is guilty of bias. I tried to go through last night in order to start making edits to remove bias, and will continue to. I believe that there is precedent to keeping a House candidate article if it is believed they have a shot at winning, exhibited by Kim's major endorsements. Alternately, the article should be migrated into a Draft on the chance that Kim wins; if he does, then it can be brought back. I understand why having this up now could be disputed, but making it a Draft article for after the election is also valid. Deletion seems harsh and overly broad; migration seems useless. If the page does not have validity staying up, make it a draft for later -- there is little relevance in a merger, I think. I will continue to remove bias no matter what happens, as I have done on the pages of a number of candidates and elected officials. PickleG13 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates are generally not eligible for pages, so I'm not sure where you came up with the precedent that we keep those articles given the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PROMO concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.