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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 07:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The coverage was about the political race which every candidates would have some coverage of such activities but the subject is not an elected politician as he was defeated -
see here. Fails
WP:NPOL.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk) 06:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: There is extensive coverage of the guy, meaning that even if he doesn't meet WP:NPOL by virtue of holding office, he probably meets it through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A brief search turned up these among others:
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — but the fact that some campaign coverage exists is not, in and of itself, a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. Every candidate in every race everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from NPOL on GNG grounds, then every candidate would always be exempted from NPOL on GNG grounds and NPOL would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. So we have an established consensus that to qualify for an article, a non-winning candidate must either (a) demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other reasons, independently of the candidacy, that he would already have qualified for an article on those other grounds anyway (i.e.
Cynthia Nixon), or (b) show such an unusual volume of nationalizing coverage that his candidacy can be credibly claimed as much more special than everybody else's candidacies (i.e.
Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those conditions are being shown here, and the links above still aren't making a stronger case that either of them are applicable.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete He lost the race, it does not matter if it was by 1 vote, or 100,000. What makes someone notable is holding a state wide elected office. If he had won the race and been shot the next day or died of COVID-19 before taking office, I would still argue he is not notable. It is actually the power and influence of serving in the office, not being elected to it per se, that makes holders of such offices notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 01:51, 21 March 2020 (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.