Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Kidd (2nd nomination)


 * 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. As per the standards usually applied to political candidates, routine coverage of a Congressional race does not confer notability on all the candidates; they must either win, attract some unusual coverage beyond the routine, or already be notable for some other reason. Consensus is that none of those apply here. RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Damian Kidd
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous version of this article was deleted in 2017. Nothing has changed in terms of the person's notability since then. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I added this article because I believe the original should not have been deleted to begin with. Damian Kidd is a noteworthy person because he challenged Jason Chaffetz due to his support for Donald Trump and Kidd was a part of the pushback against the current US President's policies. Adjohnbrock
 * Running for office is not enough to satisfy WP:NPOL. It does not make him notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Garnering national media coverage does though: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. I've cited multiple national media outlets that covered his political run. Adjohnbrock (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Those sources cover Chaffetz and barely mention Kidd, like this one. This source you cited doesn't mention him at all, and neither does this one, or this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But this one from the Washington Post discusses his involvement at length and even has Kidd's photo at the top. Again, I feel this sort of press coverage makes Kidd noteworthy regarding the blowback against the President in historically conservative regions of the US.Adjohnbrock —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. People are not deemed notable just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and they are not automatically more special than other candidates just because of the profile of who they ran against. And no, to deem a candidate a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm still requires a lot more than just one piece of more than local coverage — the bar he would have to clear is that his coverage had exploded to Christine O'Donnell proportions (i.e. so much nationalized coverage that a full decade later, her article is still to this day longer and more deeply sourced than our article about the guy she lost to, even though he's been an actual senator for that entire decade). This is not referenced even close to well enough to make his candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Preserve.Unfortunately, Wikipedia is full of failed candidates who didn't receive the coverage you are alluding to. In fact, here's one right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Morgan_(lawyer). What makes this person's wikipedia notable and not Damian Kidd? Neither one of these people won a single term in office. Hardly fair to bend the rules for one person but not another.Adjohnbrock
 * He doesn't have an article because he was a candidate; he has an article because he's properly sourced as having already been notable enough for other reasons that he qualifies for an article regardless of his candidacy — and, in fact, he already had an article two years before he was ever a candidate for anything at all. People who were already notable enough for Wikipedia articles under other criteria don't lose their Wikipedia articles just because they also happened to run for political office and lose — we're not deleting Hillary Clinton, either, since she had already held three other notable political roles before she lost the presidential election, and was thus already notable regardless of whether she won or lost — but that does not mean that people who weren't already notable enough for Wikipedia articles get into Wikipedia because they were unsuccessful candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. We're here to discuss Kidd, not Morgan. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whatever. Seems pretty arbitrary to me. The rules are only ever really enforced to protect the sanctity of the popular club. My mistake. Delete away then. Adjohnbrock
 * snort Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete In addition to failing to meet notability standards there is a likely undisclosed WP:COI with the article's creator and the Kidd's law firm, given the editor also created a bio for Kidd's partner, Matthew Driggs (lawyer) (CSDed under G11, appeal denied). Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , good catch., do you have an undisclosed conflict of interest? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete based on my standards at User:Bearian/Standards. It's not policy, but it fills in where the policies don't go. In this case, there's absolutely nothing he's done as a lawyer that's beyond run of the mill. As a politician, he never made it past a vote of a district convention - in fact, he never even appeared on a public ballot in a primary election. Lots of people run in conventions, but that does not make them notable as we define it. Perhaps the gentle reader thinks that being a leader of a "never Trump" movement matters? Compare Rich Wilson with this person. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected candidates for office are not notable, ones who did not even get the nomination of a major party even more so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  22:03, 23 September 2019 (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.