Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. French


 * 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. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW. Although such early closes should be done cautiously, the emerging consensus is clear and I think it's not optimal for the thousands of people likely to read this article this week to first encounter the AfD notice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

David A. French

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article has not done anything noteworthy to justify a Wikipedia biography. Dethslayer666 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Page edit summary note from 86.163.94.120: Relevant national figure who has held prominent positions in several organizations - 31 May 2016

One of the references for this page refers to the subject as a "random dude off the street". I don't think that Mr. French's life story needs to be preserved in Wikipedia at this time. Dethslayer666 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of an independent run for president is pretty noteworthy, if he runs. 99.108.45.119 (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

He's a random dude on the street compared to more "establishment" figures in politics, perhaps. It is easy to argue he is not notable enough to be a Presidential nominee, but it is hard to argue that he is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Statesman 88 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can potentially run for President. At this point he is a hypothetical candidate for a hypothetical campaign. By this criteria he is no more noteworthy than any other natural born American citizen over the age of 35. Dethslayer666 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the primary question here is notability, here is a brief summary of Wikipedia's standards of notability for a person/biography: '''To have their own Wikipedia article, people need to have multiple published secondary sources that are: As such, I've created a space for a list of sources that meet this standard below. Feel free to use it. Statesman 88 (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable
 * Intellectually independent from each other
 * Independent from the subject'''


 * Published Secondary Sources about David French
 * Sample Source
 * What makes this a secondary source?
 * Why is it reliable?
 * Is it intellectually independent from all other sources in this list?
 * Does the author have a vested interest in the topic?

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 1. —cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep He's not just a potential candidate, he's being considered by someone who's known to be a leader in the never Trump movement. That's why hundreds of articles have already been written on him. Mitt Romney tweeted about him yesterday. Even if he doesn't run he'll be a footnote in this election, which makes him notable. --JFH (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It may be premature at best to be considering this guy notable. If we're going to consider him notable just because someone notable floated his name as a potential candidate for an election, then that opens the door for problems down the road with deciding who's notable enough for their own Wikipedia page and who isn't. And what would stop, say, someone like me from paying off some talking head to float MY name? Then I get my own page? Preposterous! I'd advise waiting to see if he even runs first. Or seeing if he's got the book sales to make him notable in that regard, but from what I've been able to find so far isn't encouraging. Sidatio (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not just that someone mentioned his name, it's that he is now being discussed widely in the media. If you got some talking head to float your name for POTUS and then 30,000 articles were written about that I would say you are notable too.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - VP of FIRE isn't a "random dude off the street". shoy (reactions) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No notable personal achievements by the subject to merit an entry. 175.156.26.40 (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - He has been the subject of multiple major news media reports, from CNN, Fox News, Bloomberg, etc., as a potential candidate for President. That's enough. Not many "other natural born American citizens over the age of 35" (as one person wrote above) have been the subject of such speculation this year. Plus, Wikipedia can act as an educational tool for millions of Americans looking for more information about him if they are considering trying to help him get on the ballot. Awbeal (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It is very likely that this person is going to be talked about more while he mulls over the choice to run or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It might be a good idea to wait and see whether French decides to become the candidate for the "#NeverTrump" campaign before determining whether to 86 the page or not. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - he's being discussed widely in the news today. Google News Search on "David French" returns 34,000 results today with the top ones being NBC News, Heavy.com,  ABC News, the Chicago Tribune, Slate and The Atlantic.   It would seem a bizarre sort of Wikipedia passive-aggressive political action to remove him at this point.   ZeroXero (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I had heard of him before yesterday's news, and am surprised he didn't already have a page. And I'm from Canada. He's a published author, writer for a well-known political magazine and high-profile lawyer. And obviously meets the criteria for multiple independent secondary sources. 130.15.34.151 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to pass Wikipedia:Notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now since if he's the independent candidate William Kristol has been hinting at for all these months, he could potentially be the biggest third-party person to run since Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. Although if, in the near future, it turns out he's not the guy, this discussion should be re-opened. (At which point I'd probably vote keep again per 130.15.34.151.) RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd suspect he's notable based on other aspects of his biography beyond the nomination speculation as well. Besides which, whether or not he decides to run, he is the person about whom Bill Kristol has been hinting for a while, and that adds another layer to it.  I am willing to reconsider should he turn out not to be the nominee, but for now I think the article should remain. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he's good enough for Bill Kristol he's got to be good enough for us. That's how notability works, like it or not. 2600:1002:B12E:35E6:A93E:57E3:10E0:F164 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. French is getting a lot of publicity right now and large numbers of people are searching for information on him.  Deleting the article would be actively and intentionally doing a disservice to the people trying to obtain unbiased information on his biography.  His political detractors are calling him obscure and news articles point out that he doesn't/didn't have a wikipedia article.  That is an objective reality as of yesterday, but continuing to deny him an article in spite of the many articles suddenly being written about him would mean that wikipedia is choosing to take a position in a political election, which is antithetical to our core values.  Our readers are asking "is he notable" and then looking him up to make that decision on their own.  Deciding that for them is inappropriate.  As Wavy10Fan says above, we can discuss deleting the article later if he proves to be a footnote of a footnote in this election, but denying him an article right now introduces a server bias to our coverage of the election.  I would argue that the mere presence of the AfD banner at this time of high interest introduces substantial bias and I encourage wrapping up this AfD as soon as possible to remove it.  --Aranae (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Writer and presidential candidate. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I've been a Trump supporter since last year, so I have every motivation to see this article deleted, but I can not, in good conscience, recommend that course.  "Mister" French here may not be hugely notable, but he's sufficiently so, and I really don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.  KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Morbid curiosity: why did you put "Mister" in quotation marks? RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See Family Affair. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * KeepWhile, yes a lot of the coverage is because this is an on-going event with his possible candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, there is plenty of sources to cover his notability and he also already has had items to make him notable, such as his books and leading FIRE. This to me is a no-doubt keep. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - He does seem broadly notable. And the article is right to begin with and focus on the broad aspects of his legal work than on his something he hasn't even agreed to do, so content-wise it's not failing WP:ONEEVENT. Blythwood (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2016 (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.