Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chungsen Leung

:{{la|Chungsen Leung}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Chungsen Leung}})

Another campaign brochure for a person with no properly sourced indication of notability for anything other than being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, he can have an article if he wins, but is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:I think that being a director of a Publicly Traded Corporation is considered a valid reason for an entry in Wikipedia. There is a reference to that on the page. Ajbutler (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

::Only if they've actually gotten real media coverage in reliable sources in that capacity. It's not enough to be able to demonstrate that they exist by pointing to the presence of their name in a company directory (which is what your "reference" for that claim is — or, rather, what it would be if the link actually worked); you have to be able to demonstrate that there's actually been significant media coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

:I added more links, skipping anything political, there's more than enough to leave the entry Keep. A J Butler (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

::Blogs and the webpage of his own local riding association don't really count as reliable sources, you know. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

:Businessweek, reuters and tsx were added too. They each have their own pages in Wikipedia, so they should be considered reliable. A J Butler (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

::You're still not really getting what I'm saying — kindly ponder the vast difference between substantial media coverage about him and "directory" coverage which merely mentions him. All of your sources are business directory listings in which his name happens to appear, but they all fail to constitute coverage about him in any meaningful, substantive way that would demonstrate actual notability. We're after confirmation of notability here, not simply confirmation of existence. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Another article written about a single candidate in the federal election that has little to no notable outside this one election campaign. If he wins the election and becomes an MP this article can be written, but not before then. Aaaccc (talk), 22 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete simply being a political candidate who is yet to actually be elected is not grounds for notability. no evidence of him meeting WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn. Discussion was still open as of election night, and he won. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2011 (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.