Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan D. Nguyen

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. ✗plicit 01:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tan D. Nguyen[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)

The article states that Tan D. Nguyen is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for voter intimidation. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction. Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into the 2006 election's article. Mpen320 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual, not meeting notability for politics; what's left is the "crime", which seems rather minor. There is more focus in the article about his transgressions rather than him as a person, this is perhaps some sort of attack article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither demonstrates any preexisting notability for other reasons nor evinces a reason why his candidacy should be treated as a special case of greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2023 (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.