Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Gade

 * – ( View AfD View log )

He is a political candidate who has not received an abnormally large amount of national media coverage for a senate candidate necessary to meet the notability standards for a candidate,  he doesn't meet the, " Will people want to know about him in 10 years? " standard, and he doesn't appear to meet any other notability standards. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment My preference is to redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for U.S. Senate. My hesitation in placing a bolded position is that we are now less than three weeks to the election. At this point, there is value in holding off on closing the discussion until we know if the subject will be notable based upon the results. --Enos733 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. He's a candidate and this page helps his campaign. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete candidates are not default notable. If he is elected we will create an article, not before then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, he was appointed to the National Council on Disability, worked as a political appointee in the Bush and Trump administrations, and his academic work was been highlighted in the New York Times. He has also led a philanthropic project sponsored by Philanthropy Roundtable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.249.12 (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those things are "inherent" notability claims that guarantee the right to a Wikipedia article — especially if they have to be referenced to those organizations' own self-published websites about themselves because media coverage about his work in those roles is nonexistent. No matter what notability claim you want to make for a person, what turns it into grounds for an article is not the thing you say, it is the amount of media coverage he did or didn't get for doing the thing you say. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. There's a 2015 New York Times piece in the article that is not associated with his campaign for office that gives some information about him. This piece from the George W. Bush Center discusses him, although since he was involved in the Bush administration, I can see the independence of that source being challenged. Press release from his NCD work doesn't count towards notability. Little bit of coverage here (from 2017). There's some pre-campaign coverage about him, but it's too limited to make a WP:GNG push here.  If he beats Warner, then the redirect can be removed.  For now, there's just not quite enough non-campaign related coverage to get across the bar of GNG here. Hog Farm Bacon 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe Gade would be notable even if he was not the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Virginia. Among other reasons, he has taken a bold, unpopular, but well-articulated stand on veterans disability policy - see the article in the New York Times, and Gade's article in National Affairs. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - I also think it's close, but I'm not quite convinced it's quite there. The NYT piece is good, but the other one is written by him, so it can't go towards GNG. Between the NYT piece, the George W. Bush center piece I linked in my comment, if we can find another one from before the election, I think a case of notability can be made. Hog Farm Bacon 16:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect Wikipedia is not the place to catalogue individuals who lose elections, as Gade likely will. Without his candidacy, he has an excellent resume but not notability under our precedents. Reywas92Talk 23:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect, obviously without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a free GNG-based exemption from NPOL, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage. To be notable without having to hold office first, a candidate must either (a) properly demonstrate preexisting notability that would already have gotten him an article anyway, or (b) properly demonstrate a reason why his candidacy is much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But the claims of preexisting notability being made above are not "inherently" notable enough to confer instant notability freebies in the absence of GNG-worthy media coverage about that work, and there's nothing here that would suggest his candidacy is unusually important. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep based on service in Republican administrations and National Council on Disability membership. Passes WP:SIGCOV. KidAd   talk  18:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, but the national council on disability membership doesn't justify notability in my opinion, since no current members as far as I know have pages. Also, serving at a relatively low level in an administration should not be enough to justify an article. Finally, I think Gade is close to meeting SIGCOV but I think he falls short of having enough coverage to meet SIGCOV . Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I could've provided more detail in my vote, and do not thing that Gade's (former) National Council on Disability membership is integral to his notability. In this case, the subject nearly meets a few notability standards, (WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOL, WP:NACADEMIC) but doesn't quite "get there" for each of them. That is why my vote was weak keep, as I evaluated his notability cumulatively. KidAd   talk  01:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hbass881 —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. If he wins page can be recreated. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Between the coverage of him before his senate race that Hog Farm points out, and the coverage of him during his current Senate campaign, there is enough to meet WP:GNG in my view. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to the election page. Clearly not notable on his own, as most sources are passing mentions only or based on the campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect as I don't think he'd be notable except for the fact he's an unelected candidate. We can always restore it if he wins, regardless of when this discussion closes. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Muboshgu and SportingFlyer. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only is he a USA Senate candidate - and all candidates for USA senate should be recorded on wikipedia in perpetuity - but also he was one of the many Trump nominees who was stonewalled by never receiving attention to his nomination. There should be a category for those people, many of whom gave up because they needed to support their families. Kissedsmiley (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree as he's been on the disability board appointed by a presidential administration, and with the coverage of him during his current Senate campaign, there is enough to meet the criteria in my opinion.
 * keep Well over the GNG bar and there is no relevant policy or guideline that prohibits and article. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A discussion at WP:AN is both relevant and mentions this AfD. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not as obvious a GNG pass as Theresa Greenfield or John James. He had a short article even before there was anything about Senate candidacy, which is a definite point in favor, though I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it would've survived AfD then. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the decision to recreate the Greenfield page, which seems relevant here, I'm in favor of keeping this article up until election day, but if Gade loses, we should reopen this discussion of possible deletion. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This violates WP:CRYSTAL. Once you're notable, you're always notable. If his notability is contingent on winning the election, he's not yet notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - we have a number of GNG-eligible sources: sources which are independent, reliable, and which provide significant coverage about this subject. These are not passing mentions as other commenters claim. See for example biographical articles from Minot Daily News, Henry County Enterprise, election coverage from AP, The Washington Post, The Virginian-Pilot, The Winchester Star, Government sources 1 2 3, news on his appointment Bloomberg. NPOL is not valid justification to delete, it defers to the GNG on unelected candidates, and this subject passes GNG. Notability is not temporary, says a notability guideline. WP:10YT is an "explanatory supplement", it can't possibly override NTEMP. ST47 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with just using WP:GNG alone to argue this case is that every candidate will likely pass some sort of WP:GNG standard by virtue of being a candidate. Passing WP:GNG isn't the issue with candidate articles. As we've seen from previous historical elections, people who fail to get elected typically don't have any lasting notability and go back to private life pretty quickly (though often the election will be between two people who are already notable.) I don't see any WP:GNG coverage apart from the campaign, making this a WP:BIO1E, and it was clearly created to support the candidacy which introduces WP:PROMO concerns. We don't even have to lose any of the information on the page if it's merged or redirected and can easily restore it if he wins. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (replying to SportingFlyer just above the relist notice)
 * I don't agree that WP:GNG "is not the issue" for political candidates. The nomination was based on notability and 10YT. GNG applies to all subjects. Heck, WP:NPOL explicitly tells us to use the GNG to determine notability of unsuccessful political candidates. (It doesn't say to use a special modified version of the GNG in which we ignore sources related to his candidacy.) Many candidates will not pass GNG, particularly minor candidates who receive only passing mentions or routine coverage, but this one does.
 * When you say lasting notability, what policy are you referring to? WP:LASTING talks about events, and even then, it says that events with lasting importance are notable, it does not say the inverse.
 * WP:BIO1E is also more nuanced than simply one event => no article, but this individual is not notable for only one event. He is a military veteran who has received some minor decorations, he has published articles in several peer-reviewed journals which have also been discussed in the media, he was appointed to the National Council on Disability and received a presidential nomination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (To be clear, I do not say that he is not independently notable for each of these things. However, they all contribute to his notability.) The sources and our coverage focus on far more than one event.
 * I do not agree that this article is excessively promotional, but even if it is, AfD is not cleanup. ST47 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you actually make a strong argument that WP:BIO1E does apply - if he wasn't notable before this campaign, he's been notable for zero "events." Furthermore, many losing candidates will pass WP:GNG based on their campaign coverage alone, but we've frequently held that does not make them notable. WP:NOTNEWS says: For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Interpret that as you will, but "routine" is consistently applied as "anyone in this person's position would have received coverage," whether it be a punter being released from a football team or a political candidate. It also says: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This means that once you're notable enough for an article, you're notable. It also means (through many AfDs) that if you don't have enduring notability - if you're just a part of the news cycle, as any candidate is - then the proper thing to do is either delete or redirect to the relevant election. It's also why we've got a mix of keep and delete/redirect - the keep !voters think passing WP:GNG is enough, while those of us wishing to redirect know that if he loses, in five years we'll take a look at this page and go, why the heck does this guy have an article (unless he becomes notable for something else in the interim.) Since he's only notable in the context of the senate election, a redirect/merge is appropriate - and as I've noted before, we don't have to lose any of the information. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Doing an independent Google search the subject meets Wikipedia Notability Policy (GNG). I don't look at other guidelines, and especially essays, unless GNG is weak which is not the case here. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT can knock off a WP:GNG article, specifically WP:BIO1E. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E is not policy so it's out unless notability is questionable, IMO. WP:NOT is considered a Wikipedia policy, remarkable enough, and if followed by the letter of the law will relegate Wikipedia to the rigid insignificance of that of Britannica. One person/One event is a completely laughable argument when you have an article on Lawnchair Larry --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, are going to place no significance on his being awarded the Bronze Star Medal? It may not be as prestigious as other awards but it has become more significant since they stopped handing them out like candy in the 1990's.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a bit of a dodge, but the article is Lawnchair Larry flight rather than Lawnchair Lary. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the BLP shows notability as per WP:GNG and has contributions in multiple fields like Military, Academics, Politics. Promotional lines like - "Bush described cycling with Gade as "unbelievable" given Gade's injury" need to be removed. So, I do have WP:PROMO issues with it. However, I would say it should be kept for the moment. The outcome of future elections should not base the retention of the page.--Camella Gandhi (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested to 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia. Polling, the lack of endorsements or funds, and prognosticators (Cook and Bitecofer agree it's "Safe Dem"), with less than two weeks to go, indicate he's going to lose badly, possibly by more than 20 points. It's probable that not only he will lose, but several people who have endorsed him could also lose. Much of the coverage is obligatory both sides reporting. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am inclined to agree with the notion that major party candidates for US Senate races should have articles in general. While the WP:NPOV policy does not directly apply, I do believe that deleting the non-incumbent major party candidate runs while giving full coverage with a biography of the incumbent runs against the spirit of that policy. When Wikipedia covers elections, there should be fair representation to both sides of the election. The caveat is that coverage is contingent on the core WP:V and WP:NOR policies being met, and there needs to be enough sourcing (WP:GNG) for a full article. In this case, there is a wide amount of media articles, so I don't see that as an issue here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have long thought that merely being a major party candidate in a major US Senate race was not enough for notability, but per the WP:AN result on Theresa Greenfield and the WP:AFD results on John James and Marquita Bradshaw, there clearly is a community consensus that all such individuals are inherently notable. Additionally, Gade already had press coverage and an article for years before he became a US Senate candidate. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG, including career before he ran for the Senate. There is no reason why we must preclude congressional candidates from having articles, or setting an abnormally high bar. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 12:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the apparent change in community consensus that the major party candidate for a seat in the US senate is sufficient notability to be presumed appropriate for an article. (I've been urging it for many years now, and I'm glad to see the progress).  DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 31 October 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.