Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Applegate (California politician)


 * 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 to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug Applegate (California politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Online sources all relate to his unsuccessful bid for Congress last year and his current campaign for the same office in 2018 (which is insufficient to demonstrate notability). Kurykh (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 or delete. I agree he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN as of now, but he could be a search term for someone interested in the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 or delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate, in and of itself — to get him into Wikipedia, you would need to show and reliably source that either (a) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, or (b) the campaign coverage exploded wildly out of proportion to the volume that every candidate in any election could always show (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things is being demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018 per Bearcat's remark above. I encourage the merge to include the information from the article as I believe it is informative, even if it fails notability. MPEN320 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2017 (CST)
 * Delete defeated US house candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You forgot the word "inherently," JPL... Losing candidates CAN be notable if there is sufficient auxiliary material to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect per longstanding precedent that run of the mill losing candidates for high office, even those of major parties, even those who almost won, are presumed non-notable unless sufficient additional sourcing beyond that generated by the campaign itself can be provided. I don't like this consensus, we're supposed to be the sum of human knowledge blah blah blah, but I recognize it. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2017 (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.