Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Kohl


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dan Kohl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable failed candidate, lobbyist and relative of notable politician Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON, if he wins an election, he'll be notable enough for an article. Until then, this article reads like a puff piece. -Sebanderson (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, has not accomplished enough on his own. Caro7200 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I fully agree its WP:TOOSOON. Kohl is still a candidate, if he gets elected to the position, then an article can be created. Just because he comes from a notable family, does not warrant an article for him. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 23:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Royal broil  02:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and since every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage in the local media, the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to fulfill NPOL. Rather, he needs to either (a) show that he was already notable enough for an article for other reasons independently of the candidacy, such that he would already have qualified for an article anyway on those other grounds, or (b) show that his candidacy received such an unusual volume of nationalized or internationalized attention that he would have a credible claim to his candidacy being much more special than everybody else's candidacies, but neither of those are on offer here. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he runs again and wins, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2020 (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.