Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Moreno


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I read this discussion as having a consensus to Keep this article. Editors who still believe a Redirect is more appropriate can bring this up on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Bernie Moreno

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable political candidate. Doesn't seem like he's gotten much news coverage outside of routine coverage of his Senate campaigns. I would support a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - With him being the presumptive GOP nominee and having significant press coverage he more than meets the requirements to have an article. JacobJaurigue (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - he's the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, and 'routine coverage' for a major senate campaign is usually enough to be notable. TocMan (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that claim holds water. Previous AfDs for Senate frontrunners with no other claim to notability were closed as delete -- see Articles for deletion/Hung Cao and Articles for deletion/John E. Deaton. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanted to know whether there were scandals associated with him and figured since he is a Republican that if anybody has any dirt on him, wikipedia would have it boxed in heavy type. Happy to see there is none. 2603:6010:BC00:24AD:19A0:DCA8:D0D5:6931 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the whole gay sex scandal part? Anyways, thanks for helping prove my point about brand-new accounts showing up to argue the page should be kept. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Virginia U.S. senate race is widely considered to be a safe seat for incumbent senator Tim Kaine. Moreno's race for the Ohio seat is considered highly competitive, and has received much more coverage. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * People should be able to access to information of frontrunner candidates. It's another issue if he actually loses the election, but currently he has not. ShapeshiftingGod (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — ShapeshiftingGod (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's a repository of articles about notable topics. Per WP:10YT, something should not have a Wikipedia page unless people will still be trying to find information about it in 10 years. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, the voters in Ohio need information about the candidates so they can make their voting decisions — that's what Ohio's news media, and the candidates' campaign materials, are for. But it's not Wikipedia's job to maintain an article about every candidate in an election primary — our job is to maintain articles about people who have already achieved something important enough that people will still be looking for information about them 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. That is, he'll get an article if he wins the election in November, but does not get one just for being a primary candidate in March. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * With Trump’s endorsement and currently having a lead in the primary polls I’d say he’s notable enough. JacobJaurigue (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — JacobJaurigue (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Neither of those things proves notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He has also had significant press coverage from many different sources for his role as a candidate, his endorsements, and his scandals.
 * And now that it seems the primary election is going on and he has won, I believe that my position here has been further vindicated. JacobJaurigue (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Colombia, Florida,  and Ohio.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting...within the span of one hour, two accounts voted "keep" in this discussion, one of which hasn't made an edit in over a year and the other of which is a brand new account. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, rather than being some nefarious SPA plot, it's because you nominated the article for someone who's been in the news non stop for about four days for deletion? Heaven knows people will go to Wikipedia to check out who this guy is once they read about what he's been up to, see the big huuuuge red banner at the top and think "Hey, I think this guy is notable". Also, that "brand new account" was actually created in June, it just didn't edit 'til now. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably keep. Reading the article it just got better and better. Hey, if it has the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it has the sources. How does the campaign coverage cited here satisfy WP:GNG? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it has sources is far from enough. Those sources must be WP:SIRS, and even that is not enough to overcome WP:BIO1E and the requirements of WP:NPOL. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

*Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio per SportingFlyer. Current sourcing is routine campaign coverage, not sufficient (see WP:NOTNEWS #2 & #3, and WP:BIO1E) to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins the election. Sal2100 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which requires the politician to have been elected or pass WP:GNG. Current coverage is WP:BIO1E. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I note that this article has previously been WP:BLAR'd a few times prior to this recent new creation. Restoring the redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article on the election. Since he would not have otherwise received an article if he had not run for office, he is not "permanently" notable yet. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing my !vote per WP:HEY and rationale of ser! below. Sal2100 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article now passes WP:GNG definitions
 * A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * The significant coverage is met with recent conversations in national media
 * Presumed: ''Significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
 * The sources are reliable (Associated Press)
 * The sources are secondary
 * The sources are Independent of the subject Nardo19672 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — Nardo19672 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You can't just copy-paste the definition here, you have to actually explain how Moreno satisfies it. Also, this is another brand-new account showing up to vote keep. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The other thing is that even if someone passes GNG, they still may not be eligible for coverage. We have long standing practice that candidates themselves are not notable just for being candidates because of the type and caliber of the news which is generated about them. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The other thing is that even if someone passes GNG, they still may not be eligible for coverage. We have long standing practice that candidates themselves are not notable just for being candidates because of the type and caliber of the news which is generated about them. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * keep - I think we can wait until Tuesday. If he loses the nominating race, then delete. If he wins, keep. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is actually a great argument for deletion, as you are confirming he's only notable because he's a political candidate for office. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I came here purposefully looking for Moreno’s stance on LGBTQ+ issues, after reading an article on him and the AFF account. News articles often have right or left leans, and I was looking for a relatively non-biased source of information. Why remove a source of factual information in this current world of biased news? 75.165.128.33 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) — 75.165.128.33 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Because that is not the role of this encyclopaedia - we are concerned about documenting lasting information. There is no reason why that information could not be found on the page about the election. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note to Moreno supporters coming here with their brand-new accounts to vote keep: it's probably smart to avoid leaving a comment that makes it really obvious you don't actually care about notability and are just trying to keep Moreno's page for partisan reasons. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio. It is standard that candidates aren't notable just for being candidates, and this individual doesn't seem particularly noteworthy outside of his candidacy, and his notability could change in the near future so I don't see a good reason not to redirect. If it is to be kept, it needs to be cleaned up at the least. And BottleOfChocolateMilk is right about all these accounts–at least three or four of the arguments presented here should honestly probably be discounted. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I must say that some of these arguments are weaking my stance just a bit. I'm honestly surprised that no one's come in here yet accusing us of having a political agenda. Of course now that I've said that... Anyway, I do wonder if becoming the nominee now adds any notability? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or redirect. Being a "frontrunner" in an election primary isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and even winning the primary still wouldn't be grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But having a smattering of the merely expected run of the mill campaign coverage is not sufficient in and of itself to claim that an unelected candidate has passed WP:GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show enough campaign coverage to attempt that argument, so if that were how it worked then NPOL itself would be meaningless and unenforceable since no candidate would ever actually be subject to it at all anymore. The test for making a candidate more special than other candidates hinges on whether you can show coverage in other contexts besides his candidacies, to establish that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacies, but this is showing nothing of the sort. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the general election, but simply being a candidate in the primaries is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One will note that Run-of-the-mill is an essay that has not been vetted by the broader community and that
 * the section on politicians was added to it by the above editor, who now seems to be quoting themself as an argument. Djflem (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also long-standing practice at AfD. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One will note that I didn't make anything up myself, and everything I said was established fucking consensus, that is routinely upheld at AFD, about how the notability of unelected candidates works. The bar they have to clear is permanent notability, not current newsiness — to demonstrate that a candidate is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you have to assume that the guy loses the election and then never does another notable thing again as long as he lives, so that "was a candidate in an election that he lost" is his peak notability claim for all time, and then still somehow find a credible reason why people would still be looking for information about his campaign in the 2030s and 2040s anyway. Not because I say so, but because every AFD we've ever conducted on any unelected candidate says so. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete — fails WP:NPOL, WP:BIO1E, WP:RECENTISM. Redirect wouldn't be best, as he's run failed campaigns other times, so there isn't a good single target. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are supposed to have long term meaning, not merely based upon feelings of the moment. Right now, this doesn't even meet the general historical requirements of The Political Graveyard.
 * Fair but I think his candidacy in this election is more noteworthy than his candidacy in the 2022 election, as he dropped out somewhat early. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the 2022 race, he dropped out well in advance of the primary; in this race, he was the frontrunner and had Trump's endorsement. At this point, the fact that he also ran for a few months in the 2022 race is trivia more than anything. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "Keep" per https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/trump-endorsement-bernie-moreno-ohio-senate.html, which is not normal coverage. Djflem (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorsements don't make unelected candidates more special than other candidates Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Coverage by international newspapers does. Djflem (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely call that normal coverage for a Senate candidate. Nobody arguing "keep" seems to be able to cite any non-campaign-related coverage of Moreno. And the argument about "international newspapers" is meaningless. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree - all of this can be covered on the election page. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A merge of the three or four or five paragraphs about Moreno into the election article (all of this can be covered on the election page) would certainly be a lot of weight about one candidate. Coatrack articles are never good. Djflem (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All of those paragraphs are about his campaign platform. If he loses and we remove those, there's nothing left to report on. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, this guy is all over the news. Deleting his article would probably make the news. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "This guy is all over the news" is A. subjective, and B. not a valid argument for notability. What's going to happen in ten years when this campaign is long forgotten and Moreno is no longer "all over the news?" Are people still going to be searching for information about him? Can you cite any news coverage about him that's not related to this campaign? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine that any admin will agree with your argument—the most specious to disgrace AfD in a good long while—and delete this article. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The most specious to disgrace AfD in a good long while– Would you mind explaining? Deleting his article would probably make the news–I agree, but I don't see how that's a reason to keep it. Well, Bottle, it seems we may have our second assault on democracy cut out for us ;) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you know. In any case, no amount of haranguing here will prevent this article from being kept. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't think I know. In any case, I'm not attempting to harangue; if the community decides to keep the article, then so be it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have removed some contentious controversial material pending discussion on talk page - would be good if some experts at WP:BLP can join the discussion Mr Vili   talk  01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any argument for why this page should be kept? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is good sourcing and the person meets GNG but currently the article has some severe BLP issues Mr Vili   talk  12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect Comment Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio as a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for a federal legislative body (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. I agree with Bearcat with how NPOL is interpreted. Also, winning the primary is not necessarily sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. Many verifiable biographical details can be included in the page about the election.  --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Taking a second read through the sources, especially the Plain Dealer feature, this is probably a closer call than what I originally saw. There are some sources that predate the 2024 election that could be seen as significant, especially in conjunction with the 2024 Senate bid.
 * That all said, there are good reasons why the community has not automatically considered all candidates for federal office as worthy of a stand-alone article. Pages about politicians are ripe with campaign-related content and positions on all manner of political positions and have a tendency to be edited only by campaign supporters (or campaign opponents) - meaning the neutrality of political candidate pages are suspect. There is also an important question of fairness if we open the doors to all candidates (or all candidates to federal office) - as would a member of the Alliance Party who runs for Congress entitled to a stand-alone page? What about candidates who are part of a party list (in a system using proportional representation). Also, we are not Ballotpedia, whose mission is to provide information about all candidates.
 * I do recognize that these subjective comments do not answer the question about whether a subject meets WP:GNG. That said, there is a more foundational point about privacy that is embedded in our policies and guidelines. One of the most fundamental points is once an subject meets the notability standard, that subject will always be notable. This is a good guideline, especially used in conjunction with the ten-year test. However, losing political candidates, especially those without any prior elected experience, are more akin to a low-profile individual. After a year, or after six months of seeking the public spotlight, these candidates fade quickly into the background. Media attention wanes or disappears, and maybe there is an obituary that mentions they were a candidate 30 years ago. From our perspective, those pages are not updated, can be a place for unreviewed spam, and more likely, a repository of political positions that can quickly age.
 * This is why the campaign pages exist. The campaign pages can (and I think should) do a better job of providing a (verifiable) background about the candidates without the need for a stand alone page.
 * That all said, we are in the middle of campaign season in the United States - and with our first past the post, winner take all election system, we will see more pages about candidates created by eager supporters. I do hope that as editors bring these candidate pages to AfD, there is a focus on sourcing in the discussion - and less on comments like "the candidate is leading in the polls," "the candidate is the party nominee," or "the other candidate has a page." - Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Striking redirect !vote. I still think redirect is the better action, because election pages are more neutral than stand-alone pages, which I fear quickly become campaign repositories or trivia of political positions (added by eager supporters or opponents of the candidate). That said, it is likely that the volume of material about the subject will be sufficient to overcome any question about sourcing. But, that gets to the second question of WP:N, that meeting GNG does not mean that a subject should have a stand-alone article. This second question is even more subjective and is not well answered in the middle of a candidate-centric election. --Enos733 (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I still don't think he would have been eligible for an article if he hadn't become a political candidate, and I do hope the closer will take the weight of past consensus into consideration. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete It is long-standing convention that Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign material (either negative or positive) for unelected candidates for political office. In large democracies like India and the United States there are many hundreds if not thousands of candidates running for office. Much of the sourcing is about his candidacy for office and is effectively promoting his political views: "Running on an outsider image, Moreno has expressed positions on big tech, such as breaking up monopolies via anti-trust laws and "ending wokeness." Literally all of the influx of keep !votes by SPA accounts about fail to advance any policy-based reasons to keep the article. Coverage of endorsements from fellow politicians is routine election coverage that does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a GNG pass - and on that, the idea that GNG passes have to meet their specific subtopic notability criteria, like NPOL as is referenced here, is entirely inaccurate given WP:N's literal lede - as even taking the Delete votes at their best, the coverage is far beyond WP:MILL. The Guardian, Axios, The Plain Dealer for just three that meet WP:SIRS - all significant coverage, all independent of the subject, all reliable and all secondary sources. Even beyond his current candidacy, there's SIGCOV of Moreno as a car dealer - The Plain Dealer again, Automotive News - and coverage of his unsuccessful run from 2022 in Jewish Insider. Combine all of these and it's impossible to find an angle through which Moreno doesn't pass GNG. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article even further with sources that meet WP:SIRS, including an entire piece about him by Cleveland Scene, another piece about his appointment to the MetroHealth board from the Plain Dealer and an article about comments he made during COVID-19 by WKYC. The case for Moreno passing GNG is clear. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The case is far from "clear." So it seems like the only non-campaign-related coverage is a couple of Plain Dealer articles and..."Automotive News." I'm not convinced. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's zero reason for you to exclude all campaign-related coverage as conveyors of notability, given he *is* a political candidate. If it was just run of the mill "Moreno to host rally", "Moreno announces such and such thing", I'd understand. But if you look at the sources, you've got elongated profiles of him, reports about dirt coming out about his past, news articles being written about the guy - all stuff written specifically about Bernie Moreno, indicating that he is a notable person. But even taking your desire for "only non-campaign related coverage" at its best, you've got multiple articles in reliable sources specifically about him with the various Plain Dealer articles and WKYC (and the Automotive News outlet you take scorn upon, which isn't just some blog website), providing significant coverage. That's multiple pieces of significant coverage, which by DEFINITION is a GNG pass. I don't think you're going to be convinced (and given you've replied to all bar one of the keep votes, would recommend you have a look at WP:BLUDGEON), but given at least one other editor has switched their vote over the actual provision of these sources I will leave this reply. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep-Moreno is the front runner for the seat in the Republican primary, and he has a chance to become the next Senator in 2025, due to Ohio trending more Republican in recent years. Jeffersonian111 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Having a chance of becoming a U.S. Senator does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOL is totally irrelevant here as the ONLY thing that special subject notability guideline does is offer some presumed notability to certain government officeholders (a freebie, as it were), nothing more. Djflem (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOL establishes that "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." The user I was replying to tried to claim that Moreno was notable based purely on the fact that he is an unelected candidate for political office. Seems relevant to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Until after he either loses the primary (which doesn't seem likely at this point) or general election and then reassess the notability. If he wins the general, he would get an article by default. There's no harm in using the wait-and-see approach which seems most appropriate here. Noah, AATalk 00:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. He just clinched the nomination. In my view all major party nominees for US Senate are notable, as we established in 2020 with the Administrators' noticeboard for Theresa Greenfield. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not what the close said. The close was "Consensus is that the subject (Theresa Greenfield) does meet the GNG. NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates." The only question is whether the subject meets GNG (and the extent the subject meets WP:NOT:WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, along with WP:BIO1E and to the extent that candidates should be considered low-profile individuals for participating in one event or pass the ten-year test for sustained coverage. - Enos733 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep He just won the nomination. I think that will be enough for this. Wollers14 (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * He just won the Senate primary in Ohio, this point is no longer true. 2600:1014:B189:E3E0:8120:CB44:1B9C:8D6E (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel like folks should pay attention to who Donald Trump endorses before flagging stuff like this. Tanukichi23 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think that's how we run an encyclopedia do you? AusLondonder (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep because he has received widespread coverage after winning the Republican primary for the 2024 Senate election in Ohio, which is a statewide race and widely considered to be a highly competitive race. I would support deletion if this was a U.S. House or state legislative race, but because this is a race for statewide office he has sufficient notability. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Major party nominee for statewide political office with a well sourced article that seems to be improving as time goes by. If Moreno isn't notable, then a lot of pages on this site should be nominated for deletion for other individuals. Planetberaure (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete / Redirect to the main race article He has no notability whatsoever outside of this election. He would only warrant a standalone article if he is elected to the Senate. Griffindaly (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously notable BLP. Opposers unconvincing. Let’s wrap this up and pull the article tag asap. Jusdafax (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reading this whole discussion has been... interesting. Personally just looking at the significant amount of WP:RSP covering the person I would say keep. Plenty of the coverage are in-depth looks as well in addition to routine coverage. Grahaml35 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article has significantly improved since this was opened and I think WP:GNG and WP:NPOL are sufficiently met now. Additionally, I would argue that it doesn't matter if candidates 'have no notability outside of/after the campaign' since we aren't there yet; there is clear notability now, which means the article should be kept. Gazamp (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Being a major-party candidate for the U.S. Senate is an appropriate qualification for someone to be the subject of a Wikipedia page. Now that he has won the primary, the deletion nomination should be deleted. 2603:7080:7B06:2A00:95F:27EC:78F5:894B (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to what policy or guideline says that being a major party candidate for the US Senate means you're "entitled" to a Wikipedia page? Does this apply in any other countries? AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the original creator of this page as a redirect, I would not have argued for keeping this until very recently. But now that Moreno is now a major party nominee in a battleground Senate race, and even during the primary campaign, has received significant coverage in reliable sources regarding his campaign for office, he almost certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL now. And he will almost certainly continue to receive coverage that will be sustained now that he has received the nomination in a major Senate race, satisfying WP:SUSTAINED, while continuing to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Precedent since 2020 has generally been to keep the pages of major party nominees for important Senate races if they receive significant press coverage, and WP:NPOL has been amended to reflect this reality. Muhibm0307 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When was NPOL amended? We've always been concerned with lasting notability here - i.e., if we looked at this in ten years, would we still keep it? And we're not there yet, everything on the page can be adequately covered on the elections page. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given precedent in the past, articles where the candidate is in this stage of the campaign in an important race have generally been kept, given their tendency to result in sustained media coverage as a consequence of being a major party nominee in a battleground race. Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect: per AllTheUsernamesAreInUse. This is standard WP:NPOL stuff and we should be consistent. Yes, his candidacy is getting a lot of press at the moment, but he's not otherwise notable (yet). Marquardtika (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major party nominee for US congress in a state that is shifting to towards the republican party. Considering Trump won the state in 16 and 20 by almost 10 points and looks to be up in the polls for the state by 10-12% the state will most likey vote for Bernie if trump wins the state. The past few elections nationwide have shown crossballot voting for president and state has almost all but gone away. user:koolkidmitchel 3:17 (UTC), 20 March 2024.
 * Keep - Political candidates, particularly those who have won their party's endorsement for the US Senate, are subjects of public interest. Wikipedia serves as a valuable resource for voters seeking information about candidates, their backgrounds, policies, and positions on various issues. Deleting Moreno's article could deprive the public of important information relevant to democratic decision-making.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG and the rationale provided by . There is a lot of non-routine news coverage of this guy.  City o f  Silver  15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Candidates for office aren't presumed to be notable, but Moreno is a major party nominee for U.S. Senate in one of the most closely-watched races in the country. We're still months from Election Day, and he's received more than enough non-trivial press coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rockhead126 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment So apparently all "major party" candidates for office are considered notable now? For permanent entries on a global encyclopedia? Does this only apply in the US? Would love to hear from some of those applying these ludicrous, non-policy arguments above. AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the arguments here are incredibly biased toward USA political content. Happens every four years. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: The following comments have been copied and pasted from the afd talk page: Sal2100 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why delete instead of adding various perspectives? Mr Moreno is obviously a real person of public interest. If elected to Congress, he will also become someone particularly influential. As a result, people will naturally want to learn facts about him.  It doesn't make sense to remove the article.  If someone has issues with the man, they could just add facts to the article.  By removing the article, there's less of a chance for people to get an unbiased view. 2607:FCC8:FFC0:5:5C63:D3DD:3558:C75E (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because everything in the article is directly related to the fact he is a current candidate, and all of that information can be covered on the page about the election. Candidates who lose are generally not notable enough for an article - we need to make sure that he has lasting notability, and the vast majority of the keep !votes here violate WP:NOTNEWS. If we'd delete the article if he lost, which several keep !votes are suggesting, then we need to redirect and cover his candidacy on the election article. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Why delete instead of adding various perspectives?" - Okay, then should Nella Domenici and Ty Perkins also have articles? They are just as notable as Bernie Moreno if our criteria is that low. Which shouldn't be the case. We should have higher criteria for articles concerning politics because this could potentially turn into campaign propaganda ifwe are not careful with these pages. Radiohist (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete - This person is notable for only one event. If we have surmised that Bernie Moreno hasn't done anything significant in his career as a businessman prior to this, then this page needs to be deleted asap. Radiohist (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP! We the People have a right to fact-based information about candidates that will make decisions that affect all of our lives!  Why would anybody want to delete it??? 74.83.88.92 (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because that's not what the encyclopedia is here for. We're not merely a fact depository. Same goes with the other IP comment copied from the talk page. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I'm not even from the United States but I have been following the Ohio Senate elections and was surprised Bernie Moreno had no Wikipedia profile until days ago. It is great that he now has a page, so why would anyone even think of deleting such a notable personality's profile. Bernie has been dominating the news for weeks now, and there is a clear huge public interest about his life Applehead1000 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Moreno hasn't been a notable figure in Ohio politics in any way. Regarding the fact he is a nominee for senate, well, so are Nella Domenici and Ty Perkins, but they don't have wikipedia pages. Because all three are notable for just one event.Radiohist (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per arguments made by User:Ser!, this article seems more than notable enough to be kept. Zinderboff(talk) 06:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG per Ser! Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 15:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: A modern nominee from the U.S. Democrat or Republican parties for a federal position is inherently notable. Coverage of his COVID controversy in 2020 adds further credibility that he was a major community figure prior to the last four months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: While not all major-party Senate nominees pass WP:GNG, those nominated for highly-competitive elections certainly do so. Ohio is currently represented in the Senate by Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, with Moreno as his opponent. This Senate race, in a state which Trump won in both 2016 and 2020, is one of the most competitive in the election, having been rated as a tossup by the Cook Political Report (https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-ratings), the UVA Center for Politics and Sabato's Crystal Ball (https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2024-senate/), and Inside Elections (https://insideelections.com/ratings/senate), with Split Ticket even giving Moreno the edge at Leans Republican (https://split-ticket.org/senate-2024-ratings/). All of this points to the race being extremely competitive, with Moreno having a very strong shot at becoming Ohio's next Senator. If he were to win, an article for a sitting US Senator would most certainly pass both WP:GNG and WP:10YT, but it is my belief that the article would still pass both even if he were to lose. If past elections and current fundraising are anything to go off of, the race between Brown and Moreno is likely to be one of the most contentious, most focused-on, and most expensive races of the cycle and having a Wikipedia article for the candidate would be certainly within Wikipedia's guidelines, even in 10 years. I certainly don't think the article at its current state is as in-depth as it can or should be, but nevertheless, Bernie Moreno will with all certainty be one of the most notable non-incumbent figures of the 2024 Senate elections, making him deserving of an article now and many election cycles down the road. AnOpenBook (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (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.