Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Stout


 * 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   redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. It is true that a good amount of coverage exists. However, this is a prime example of WP:BLP1E: is the candidate notable outside of the context of the election (which he lost)? And the answer is no. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Stout

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable political candidate, who has never held office. His only notability is derived from a single US Senate election, where he failed to win the nomination. There is no significant non-election coverage. Contested WP:PROD. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  —LtNOWIS (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Failed election candidates are not notable. Fails WP:Politician Snappy (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — Properly footnoted, not selling a product, written to WP style. Inclusion hurts nothing. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That really isn't an argument for notability. An article can be well written and still not on a notable topic. Furthermore, large parts of the biography section, essentially the first 30 years of Stout's life, are unsourced and likely unsourceable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See my note below. The content of the article is NOT what determines notability. Stout is notable for running for the U.S. Senate, and there are many sources that cover the campaign. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Barely meets notability requirements under WP:Politician, but article is content-solid and well-written. 98.194.243.32 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep — Meets notability requirements under WP:Politician #3. There is significant coverage, from reliable sources, and is independent of the subject. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: User:JustAKnowItAll is the creator of the article.


 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. If I was in the habit of punctuating !votes with "strong" or "very strong" I would do so here. This guy is not just a failed candiate, he's a failed primary candidate, which means he hasn't even been on a general election ballot paper. He is therefore a long long way from meeting WP:POLITICIAN. There are sources that mention and discuss his candicacy. These should be ruled out on a number of bases: (1) they all discuss the candidacy and not Stout, hence the "biography" part of the article - the most important part - is completely unsourced; (2) as the sources only talk about his failed candidacy, it is essentially a WP:BLP1E; (3) most importantly, any marginal case that he meets GNG is outweighed by his massive failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Both the GNG and WP:POLITICIAN create "presumptions" of notability, not guarantees. Any presumption created by this guy passing GNG is very weak, and rebutted by his massive failure to meet our community's standards for inclusion of professional politicians. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, wouldn't most candidates fall under WP:BLP1E? 98.194.243.32 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many would. And they're no loss to the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Leading candidates for statewide office often have prior experience in state/local government, or other basis for notability. This year in Utah, most didn't, which is why the Republican field got axed in AFD. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the Bridgewater and Lee articles got axed a bit too early, and quite frankly, axed erroneously since both have siginificant coverage. It is interesting to note that based on your criteria Wendell Wilkie would have been deleted since he had no prior experience in government or other basis for notability before running for President and earning the Republican nomination. In the Utah Senate race, Williams received no coverage except an article stating he was running and an article stating that he withdrew. Bridgewater, Eagar, Lee and Stout did have coverage and it was significant. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A little objectivity goes a long way. To meet the notability requirement under WP:Politician you don't have to be a sucessful "primary candidate", in fact, based on WP you can even be a "failed" candidate. The criteria doesn't differentiate between a "primary" or "general election" or a "failed" candidate. It simply states unelected candidate for political office where you must next examine GNG. Contrary to your statement, the sourced material deals with the candidacy -- from start to finish -- those sources meet GNG. You argument moves into content which is not to be used when determining whether an article should be stand alone WP:NNC. Lastly -- isn't the community standard found in WP:POLITICIAN? If it is somewhere else, then please let me know. Otherwise, it's uncear to me where the "massive failure" is. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points, but we should be careful not to lawyer too much over the wording of WP:POLITICIAN. (1) WP:POLITICIAN says candidates can meet the guideline with significant coverage elsewhere, not that they are guaranteed to. Here the coverage is barely significant at all. (2) WP:POLITICIAN also says that the general rule is to redirect candidates and put any information about them on the election page. This outcome should be considered here and I've amended my !vote accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to settle disputes, so we should stick to the wording as much as possible. Significant coverage WP:SIGCOV means that sources mention the subject in detail. If your concern is the number of sources, then that can be rectified. There are newspaper articles, radio interviews, tv interviews, etc. I guess I'm confused as to what significant coverage is, if it isn't what GNG says it is. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete Has never held office. Was a candidate in the primary election at the state party convention, but failed to win the nomination or get on the ballot. Coverage provided is simply about the fact that he is running, which is not enough to satisfy the notability requirements for politicians. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious? Again, not holding public office doesn't disqualify. There is significant coverage -- that's the standard for GNG. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2010 (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.