Elizabeth Heng : Most of the articles cited are about a single ad she ran in her 2018 campaign.  Seems to fail WP:GNG , WP:NPOL , and WP:1E .  The ad could be (and is) discussed on the page for the 2018 race .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 18:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If she's already discussed on the page for the 2018 election, no point keeping this.  I don't see notability outside of her failed election bid.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women ,  and California .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (from a major contributor to the page).  The deletion argument above is definitely lacking.  Heng is known for three separate things: two runs for congress and for her political action committee.  So WP:1E does not apply and the 2018 election page does not cover the breadth of the information.  But also, her 2018 campaign received far greater than WP:MILL coverage.  It is unusual for a "normal" candidate to receive an op-ed about her in the Wall Street Journal.  It is unusual for a candidate's advertisements to get banned, then have the companies publicly reverse the ban after outrage.  These were covered in non-local publications.  That stands on its own.  Then following that and separately, her attack ad received more than enough press to meet GNG, including articles in Newsweek, Slate, Daily Beast, Washington Post, VOX and MSNBC.  Definitely more than two reliable, independent secondary sources.  Nweil ( talk ) 22:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being a losing candidate and forming a PAC does not make you notable.  By your logic, every perennial candidate would be entitled to a Wikipedia page, because every time they ran for office would be a different thing they're "known for."  You basically just proved my point: the only thing she's done that has gotten any in-depth coverage is her 2018 attack ad; ergo, she is only known for one event, so she fails 1E.  The discussion of her attack ad can be moved to the 2018 election page.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 22:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're wrong on the facts and that seems like a bad recipe to base important decisions on.  The attack ad is a completely separate thing.  Not in 2018.  Nweil ( talk ) 00:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My mistake.  Doesn't change the fact that she is not notable.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 03:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Redirect I believe that the pair of controversies around her ads plus the WSJ op-ed makes her more notable than most unsuccessful candidates (although I accept that it still might not reach the bar required to keep).  If there is a consensus to delete, I think that it should be redirected to the 2018 election rather than deleted outright.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam11333 ( talk • contribs ) Comment : Founding the PAC and that coverage is giving me pause.  Without that coverage, this is an easy delete, but with it she may be notable.  Although, BottleofChocolateMilk's argument that even if she's notable everything notable about her is already covered in other articles is pretty persuasive and has me leaning delete.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 16:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete failed attempts to become a politician are not notable, and if you remove all of that from the article, I don't think the PAC stuff would make her notable either.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if they can show that either  (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those grounds anyway, or  (b) their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance.  This demonstrates neither of those things.  Bearcat ( talk ) 16:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Don't you agree that between the Slate article and the NYT article , WP:GNG is met?  This is not coverage of a candidate, she was not running for anything at this time.  Its simply coverage of a public figure.  Both of those have her name in the headline, national respected publications.  Even if you completely take away 2018, she meets WP:GNG .  Nweil ( talk ) 19:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Both of those articles are just about the ad, so WP:1E applies here.  Has there been any national, in-depth coverage of her within the past 4 years, or really any time  besides September 2019?  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You’re using WP:1E wrong.  Two RSes count for GNG even if they are from the same event.  Also, national is not a criteria, I just included it above to show that the RSes I mentioned are above reproach.  The thing I’m frustrated with is that you all are using the 2018 failed candidacy to penalize someone.  I get that you have candidates creating pages for themselves all the time in the course of attempting to gain notoriety.  And you rightly nuke those page.  This is a completely different scenario.  And while being a candidate does not gift this person a page, it also doesn’t penalize them from getting one based on further coverage.  It’s like you are salting the ground when someone loses a race.  That’s not fair.  Nweil ( talk ) 20:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've never heard that "Two RSes count for GNG even if they are from the same event."  If there is such a policy, please give a link.  However, WP:IE does say "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident,..."  The way I read this is that if an event (such as the ad) is notable, then one would create an article for it.  However, if the event itself is not notable, then a person cannot be notable for that event.  Notability can of course be established for other reasons.  Lamona ( talk ) 04:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree both articles are more about the advertisement, which would almost certainly be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS .  SportingFlyer T · C 08:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNG is not just instantly met the moment two sources exist.  For one thing, as noted above by other editors, those sources are far less about Elizabeth Heng , and far more about the ad — but for another, GNG is not just "count the sources and keep anything that has more than one".  GNG is not just a number , it's an interplay between the number of sources and the context of what the sources are covering the person for .  So two footnotes is enough if the person has an inherent notability claim that passes the SNG for their occupation (e.g. the article on an NPOL-passing state or federal legislator can be started on just two sources, even though it still requires more content and sourcing before it would be considered a good article) — but if the person doesn't pass any SNG, and instead you're shooting for "notable anyway because media coverage exists", then it takes a lot more than just two sources to get there.  Bearcat ( talk ) 11:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We clearly disagree on this.  The way I read NPOL, an article on a state or federal legislator can be started even without two sources.  This happens with politicians from way back when, like the 1800s.  For those who don't pass the SNG for NPOL, they still are notable if they pass the GNG bar.  Which, as much as you are talking about interplay etc, is two sources.  This is still a very high bar.  Think about it.  There are relatively very few people who have had their name in a New York Times news headline.  Elizabeth Heng is one of those people.  The high bar of notability is met here.  Nweil ( talk ) 16:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:1E BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 21:19, 18 September 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.

Discussion outcome: delete