Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung Cao

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Cao

[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)

Of the 21 sources, 9 are either Hung Cao's social media accounts, election results pages, or an editorial he wrote. Most of the other sources are routine coverage that would be expected for any candidate in a competitive district. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I would support making this page a redirect to either 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10 or 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Military, Police, and Advertising. — Karnataka ^talk 19:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka ^talk 19:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem notable.
Delete No credible claim of notability. We go through this on every election cycle. First Law of Politics: "get elected". (The party nomination does not count.) Will reconsider the article then. Military service is not notable enough for an article. Candidate has attracted coverage in the Washington Post and if it had been at the time he salvaged JFK Jr's plane instead of when he became a candidate I would have considered it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this is offering no evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful political candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Good Morning, I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with some of the comments noted above. If there's been any issue with citations I apologies and have updated the page this morning. With regard to lack of notability, I have to disagree due to his past military and philanthropic career. If there was nothing notable aside from the fact that he won one primary, I would completely agree with your assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:47B7:9000:876:2302:ABD9:2668 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. If you want to claim that he had preexisting notability before becoming a candidate, then you have to use coverage that he received in those "notable" contexts before becoming a candidate — that is, if you want to claim that he had notability as a naval officer 10 or 15 or 20 years ago, then you have to source his work as a naval officer to 10 or 15 or 20 year old coverage that was given to him while he was a naval officer, and sourcing it to brief mentions of his having been a naval officer as background information in current coverage of an unelected candidacy for political office doesn't cut it. If you want to claim that he's notable for something that happened in 2005, for example, then the source for it has to be dated 2005 — if it wasn't newsworthy enough in 2005 that he would already have gotten an article for it in 2005, then it doesn't become a notability claim in 2023 just because it happens to get mentioned as career background in coverage of something else. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would support a redirect to the election page as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal/national office (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). However, when there are multiple plausible redirect targets, I do feel it is better for the reader using the search function to see the possible results, rather than force the reader into seeing one article over the other. --Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Hawkeye7. Wikipedia has articles about political incumbents, not challengers. Get elected and then get your article. — AjaxSmack 22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Then wouldn't the same argument apply for DANIEL GADE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:47B7:9000:8567:D68C:16E2:D5C5 (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But for what it is worth, Daniel Gade has multiple references to his activities before his 2020 candidacy. (In fact, his article was created three years before his candidacy.) This does not mean that his article would survive a deletion discussion, but it is still better placed to do so than this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Hung Cao, USN (Retired), is a true American hero. He has served honorably in many war zones and has received numerous commendations for his leadership and heroism. As such many of his deployments and assignments were secret in nature and could not be disclosed. These facts do hinder his ability of notoriety. However, Captain Cao is an American success story and deserves to be known by young and old alike. Captain Cao is a highly educated and experienced leader. He is an asset to his country and the state of VA. He is notable in the tradition of former, military trained, US leaders and should NOT be removed from Wiki.

AGM

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.