Talk:Dave Min

the article referenced is a fabrication

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. In this case, the article referenced is a fabrication. Gbonline (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the article is a fabrication? Your allegation is itself potentially libelous, if you have no reliable sources to back up that assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This HuffingtonPost journalist is building a case from a single response to a comment by the @dishonestdave45 Twitter account March 22nd. There is nothing connecting the @KevinMa02916090 with the Kevin Matthews cited as a Facebook friend of Dave Min's wife, it's shoddy journalism that connects a SINGLE TWEET from an anonymous Twitter account with an FEC report of a campaign contribution by a person with the same name. A search of Twitter or other social media - or even a Google search - shows how ineffective this alleged "whisper campaign" was, since NOTHING ELSE has been posted on social media about this. In fact, if you search for "restraining order katie porter" on Twitter, this is the only tweet you'll find. You'll have a tougher time googling the string "Restraining Order Porter" because of the plethora of items on social media about Rob Porter's inability to get a security clearance. And, yes, there actually is a beer called "Restraining Order Porter". Gbonline (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the section to address your concerns. A "whisper campaign" need not be conducted on social media to be effective, GB. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The editor has attributed information not found in the cited source

Re: Edit by 2600:8802:2101:2fa0:71ac:614e:db16:b2b2 on May 19, 2018

The editor has cited "(Added further context of the campaign based on Min campaign statements, media ad buys, and reactions captured by national press.)" This is Inaccurate information - implies elements not explicitly stated by the source

The editor has posted "After releasing the statement denying the attacks on Porter alleged in the HuffPost, Min aired two attack ads against Porter and another Democratic opponent, criticizing Porter's ties to pro-women's group EMILY's List"

The entirety of the article ["First Read's Morning Clips: Midterm Madness". NBC News. May 18, 2018. Retrieved May 19, 2018.] referenced is as follows: Emily's List is responding to a new ad from Dave Min: "For Dave Min to falsely claim that we are ‘Washington insiders’ and ‘special interests,’ he is disparaging over five million EMILY’s List supporters, many of whom are Californian and live in the 45th District."

The article doesn't say anything about two ads or another democratic opponent. Nor does the article cited make any connection to Huffington Post article. Gbonline (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Added additional information and context on convention proceedings as documented in national media.

On 22:58, 20 March 2018‎ BrittonBurdick made an edit citing (Added additional information and context on convention proceedings as documented in national media.)

There is nothing in the article cited that gave any detail about what transpired at the ADEM election at the convention. It states, in its entirety, "In the 45th District, former Chuck Schumer aide and Center for American Progress fellow Dave Min got more than the required 60 percent support for an endorsement, in a race that includes foreclosure fraud expert Katie Porter." It happens that I myself was there, and participated in this election, and there were three provisional votes held until all the votes were counted. Once the first provisional vote was approved, it put Dave Min over the 60% threshhold. They didn't need to count the other two provisional votes. It is a moot point that those other two provisional votes were also for Min. "One delegate showed up five minutes late who was not going to vote for him, which would have prevented him from getting the required 60% of the district’s endorsing caucus delegates to be endorsed by the California Democratic Party" is the invention of someone's fertile imagination. But personal experience or fabrications like the one I removed have no place in Wikipedia.

Proposal that this article be deleted

"fails our notability guideline for politicians since he is an unelected candidate for office"

You can review the previous page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Min&oldid=842550531 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbonline (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to open this up for discussion and comment. Just because a person is an unelected candidate, it doesn't mean their page has to be removed. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Judging by the number of external references cited so far on this page, I would call the national coverage of Min's campaign significant. Since the proposal has been submitted by one of Min's election competitors, I think this topic requires further discussion.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works/Chapter_1#Notability

Please feel free to share your thoughts here. Gbonline (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have participated in thousands of deletion debates, and we routinely delete articles about unelected candidates for office. This biography was created to promote his campaign on June 9, 2017, shortly after Min declared his candidacy. Nobody thought that he was notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he declared his candidacy. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting candidacies. Min should be covered in a neutral article about the Congressional campaign in California's 45th district that describes all of the candidates neutrally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 Jim, when I created this topic on the talk page, I was hoping to have other people give their feedback on the page. It seems rather extreme that you would remove the page without discussion. Am I correct in thinking this is what has occurred? It would also appear to me that an anonymous user tried to undo this action and you reverted that. Please comment. Gbonline (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have redirected the article to coverage of the Congressional district election. This is not "extreme" but is common practice for articles about unelected political candidates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cullen328, I'm just a passerby as I noticed the RfC, but I don't understand the procedural basis for your blar. As best as I can tell the article was prodded, the prod was rejected, and then you unilaterally blarred without discussion. I don't even understand the substantive basis for the blar as there appear to be plenty of reliable sources, regardless of Min's failed candicacy; see WP:BASIC. In any case, I'm not here to argue on the merits, but to ask, shouldn't this have gone to AfD? Please explain what I'm missing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, here is the appropriate language: "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect." I consider this a problematic article because it was clearly written to promote his candidacy and has also been edited by a staffer of a rival campaign trying to add negative talking points. I had to block that editor to prevent disruption. This is not a failed candidacy but an active candidacy and therefore there are major promotional concerns. I discussed this matter at the Teahouse and with two involved editors. If you disagree, feel free to revert me, and we can discuss it further at AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging DrFleischman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the explanation. However I looked at the article with fresh eyes and I didn't see the basis for promotion-based WP:TNT (which, I might add, is very different from your previous rationale). Some content might be trimmed here or there but that's a far cry from outright deletion. I think this merits more community involvement so I'm going to revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed a fair amount of promotional content. There may be more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The revisions make this page much better than before but I agree with Cullen that he is apparently not notable given either WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:NACADEMICS and that this is instead being using as promotional activity for his congressional campaign. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A brief glance suggests to me that he is notable, but that the article needs a lot of improvement. 170 mentions in Google news seems a reasonable amount to me, but I don't know how many you think are needed. Falsely claimed he was a professor, when is an assistant, but fixed that.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 05:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you believe that every single candidate for high political office is notable, User:L'Origine du monde? Because all of them get a large number of local Google News hits when they are running for office. I do not care about the number of Google hits because many or most of them are run-of-the-mill local coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Not something I know much about, but NYT, USA Today, LAt, The Intercept, and Vice are there, as are a load of bitcoin stuff. He's won the Democratic nomination, so he's achieved something, he's an assistant professor, ethnic minority and there are lots and lots of articles about less important people. Article isn't good, should be improved.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Many of the hits are stemming from the same controversy (his Bitcoin attack ad), and the hits occur because Brian Forde (the candidate the ad is targeting) has deep connections to the Bitcoin industry. It's essentially the same story that's been "re-blogged" or re-hashed by various Bitcoin industry papers. Articles focusing specifically on Min and his campaign are few. If he is notable, then Brian Forde and Katie Porter are as well -- two rival candidates that have earned more media mentions than Min. (Full disclosure: I work for a third rival candidate, Kia Hamadanchy.) BrittonBurdick (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, improve♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Tried to sort it out, removed a lot of duplication. Not very interesting, but I still think it should stay.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 06:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, BrittonBurdick, Cullen328, DrFleischman, Gbonline, and L'Origine du monde: Just so you are all aware, a formal deletion discussion (under WP:AFD) is in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Min. When the time to close it is reached, probably no earlier than 31 May 2018, the closing administrator will consider only the points raised at that deletion discussion, and will ignore those made on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruption

Cullen, I'm sharing your frustration about the disruption...in particular there are contributors who are clearly here for a political agenda and not to build an encyclopedia. This is a particularly egregious example. Is full or semi-prot appropriate? Maybe through the primary which I understand will be on June 5? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll also note that that IP contributor geolocates to UCI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done my best to revert promotional editorialization but have a hunch it will continue to happen through June 5th. I think reverting to a redirected page, as Cullen328 did originally, is the best solution.BrittonBurdick (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Assistant Professor

He is not a professor, nor an "associate professor", but an assistant professor. [[1]].♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 08:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm odd, at least one independent source calls him an associate professor, but I suppose UCI's website would be the authoritative source on this matter. But, in the U.S. an assistant professor is a type of professor--see Professor. I think we can resolve this by simply saying he's a professor and not using his official title, which is pretty standard across most professions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect as part of his promotional activity, his credentials might have got confused. While assistant professor is a type of professor, I can see no reason not to describe him as an assistant :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 15:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)