Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Bongino


 * 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. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dan Bongino

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mt king  (edits)  05:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 where all candidates for this office can receive balanced coverage written from the neutral point of view. Bongino fails WP:POLITICIAN but his candidacy ought to be covered fairly in the article about the race.  If he wins, of course an article about him will then be entirely appropriate.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I started this article because he is notable as first Senatorial candidate to have come from the Secret Service, possible first Republican Senator in MD since 1987. Does not yet fail WP:POLITICIAN because he is:
 * 1) Has not held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and is not a member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislature.  He has not been elected, but not yet sworn in.
 * 2) He is not a major local political figures, and received only moderate coverage.  He is also not a mayor of a city of regional importance or a member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
 * 3) He meets notability requirements for the reasons I listed above, but does not meet the "significant press coverage" exception in item 2 of WP:POLITICIAN that would otherwise disqualify.  User:mattfrye 14:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - in the past outcomes of AfD, we have never kept articles of candidates for political office, other than for head of government, or unless they were previously or independently notable for their careers outside of politics (for example, Donald Trump). See also WP:CRYSTAL for people who are not yet ready for inclusion.  The redirect to the election article has also been a common way to avoid POV fork and Biography issues. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MattFrye (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep (Rebuttal to previous Delete comment) - While I appreciate the precedent of not keeping articles of candidates, this is a tricky case for a few reasons.
 * 1) The "signficant media coverage" section of WP:POLITICIAN conflicts with that of WP:GNG.  The candidate cannot receive significant enough coverage to comply with WP:GNG and still pass WP:POLITICIAN.  I see the intent of the Trump example.  However, I don't think it's an effective example because he created coverage that would have caused a candidate page/section for him to fail WP:POLITICIAN.  Still, the lengthy section on his political activity remains.
 * 2) WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because this article does not engage in speculation or provide unverifiable information.  There is no extrapolation, speculation, or future history except that the Senate race will occur, which is not in doubt.
 * 3) WP:FORK does not apply because this is not a separate article on the same subject as the Senate rate article, which only mentions Bongino by name.  It is definitely not a POV fork because it does not attempt to avoid neutral point of view guidelines or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.
 * 4) The article passes WP:BLP because:
 * 5) It presents a neutral point of view.
 * 6) It presents verifiable information.
 * 7) It does not contain original research.
 * 8) Again, this article neither attacks nor praises Bongino.  It simply states the facts.


 * Reply - It is really pretty simple: People can achieve undisputed notability for other unrelated accomplishments, and later become political candidates. We keep such biographies and include a section about their political candidacies.  In addition to Donald Trump, other examples that come to mind include Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  If Wikipedia had been around during the candidacies of the first three, we would have handled the matter as with Trump or Schwarzenegger.  Secret Service agents are not usually notable, and Dan Bongino's only claim to notability is as a political candidate.  His media coverage is routine and exactly like that generated by every serious unelected candidate for office with a competent staff sending out press releases.  Routine coverage generated by press releases doesn't establish notability for anyone.


 * WP:CRYSTAL applies to the current version of the article because it says "If Bongino is successful, his election would mark the first Republican elected to the US Senate from Maryland since 1987." Assuming that's true, then it applies to every Republican candidate in this race, not just Bongino.  The article violates the neutral point of view because it includes the campaign logo, making it resemble campaign literature.


 * There is an entirely appropriate place to cover Bongino's candidacy and the article already exists at United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. That's what long-established consensus says should be done it this case, and there is no reason to open the floodgates to thousands of promotional articles about unelected candidates.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Very interesting case here and I'm glad I stumbled upon this discussion, but I think the information in the article could be moved to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 and this article made a Redirect for now. Perhaps a stronger case for his lasting notability will emerge before long. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete My error, he's just a candidate in the primary. I carelessly thought the article meant he was the Reupublican candidate: I agree primary candidates except for the presidential election are not generally notable. since essentially anybody can try to run. But  I continue to think that the nominee of a major party in a two party system for national office is notable. This is certainly true for senators in the US--with only 100 of them, each candidate   is nationally important. I do not see thousands--there would be 34 every two years, and about half would be notable from prior positions.  8 a year is not opening the floodgates.   DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Revised,   DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 - I agree with  DGG that he will be notable if he becomes the Republican nominee.  In the meantime, I think he's received enough coverage and appears to be a strong enough candidate (based only on my review of the current field of Republican candidates for Maryland Senator) to warrant a redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012.   Veganator ( talk ) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep ABC News gives him significant coverage, and a major newspaper in Maryland gives him a very long and detailed article, plus video footage of an interview with him.  Passes WP:GNG so the rest is irrelevant.  Do you think they give articles that long to just anyone?   D r e a m Focus  18:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, can you please furnish evidence that the website SouthernMaryland Online, which ran this story, is a "major newspaper in Maryland"? Thank you.  As for the articles cited, I think that they constitute entirely routine coverage of a local political candidate.  If articles like this establish notability for freestanding biographies of unelected candidates, then we ought to scrap our notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN.  The problem is, that guideline enjoys widespread support and is routinely used as a reason to redirect such campaign biographies to neutral articles about the race.  I oppose any dilution of that consensus.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "Serving Calvert, Charles & St. Mary's Counties for 5,647 Days". Been around for over 15 years, and covers several counties, so yes, its a major newspaper, not just some small town thing with low circulation.  And the GNG are all important, the secondary guidelines just covering things that are important but might not have coverage that's easy to find: such as, someone who won a noble prize, or a scientist who never did interviews but whose works are notable enough to be taught in every textbook on that subject there is.  As for WP:Politician see the top part that explains it WP:BASIC.  He passes that requirement easily.  The section after that for additional criteria is just for those that don't automatically meet that.  "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included;"   D r e a m Focus  17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "ABC News" source you provide is not from ABC News at all. Instead it is from the ABC affiliate station in Baltimore, which is not even owned by the American Broadcasting Company. It a local TV news interview of the sort routinely given to local candidates, and is not national network coverage.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://abcnews.go.com/ is the national and http://www.abc2news.com/ are from the various affiliates, both using the same company symbol, and having the same standards.  D r e a m Focus  17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete this person and his career are not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion. It appears that he is recieving very ordinary, and possibly one time press coverage. This person has recieved notice only from this one time run for an office. Also there is an NPOV issue mixed with speculation WP:CRYSTAL. Speculation as to what might happen does not equate with notability. Especially in this case since it applies to all the Republican candiates. Also, in any case, being a "first" at something does not equate with notability - and this person has not yet even achieved the distinction of being "first". Also, this person has not established any kind of career that is worthy of note. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. Of course, if he wins the election, it will be a different story. But right now, he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. SheepNotGoats (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This situation comes up frequently, and some people argue for a redirect to the election, even for the most trivial would-be candidates. I personally favor a "delete" rather than a "redirect" for an article about a would-be politician who is running in a primary and unlikely to achieve even the nomination, much less get elected. (According to the one detailed article about him, from the Washington Post, he faces an "uphill battle" for the nomination, it is "likely" that other Republicans will enter the fray, and in any case the Republican nominee is unlikely to win because Maryland has been "anything but competitive" in recent elections.) His only news coverage is related to his campaign, so he fails WP:GNG. And as an unelected, un-nominated wannabe politician he fails WP:POLITICIAN as well. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 As for non political articles, I did find a Baltimore Sun article stating Mr. Bongino as one of the lead investigators in car rental scheme investigation. --Ryan.germany (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2011 (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.