Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loren Culp


 * 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 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Loren Culp

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Classic case of failing WP:NPOL: all the coverage relates to the election and dates to after he became a candidate. (He isn't likely to win, either). This article should redirect to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Attempts to redirect or PROD this article have been rejected. See also: Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election, unremarkable political candidate, fails WP:BLP1E and there is no evidence of an exceptional level of coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election, as a usual and appropriate outcome for political candidates (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. Article can be restored after the election if the City of Republic sheriff wins and any relevant prose can be added to the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Does not meet WP:NPOL. KidAd   talk  18:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect. As always, people do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this features neither credible evidence that he has preexisting notability for reasons independent of the candidacy, nor the depth and geographic range of sources needed to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Being Canadian and not particularly knowledgeable about Washington state politics, I have no special insight into whether he's "likely" to win or not — obviously he'll be recreatable if he does win, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but he won't be entitled to an article if he loses and isn't entitled to one just because the election isn't over yet either. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. Most coverage is election-focused and subject does not appear to meet WP:NPOL. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 06:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete If he gets elected (not super likely, but it is possible) than he will be notable, not before then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above !votes. SportingFlyer


 * Redirect per above on the topic, it is of relevance to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election article. Shameran81 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC) T · C  21:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG. WP:NPOL explicitly mentions GNG as an avenue for a political candidate to be notable: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. (my bold)  Culp has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore meets GNG.  This includes national coverage prior to his candidacy, so there is no issue with WP:BLP1E.  Evidence that Culp meets GNG:
 * Tim Smith (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidates are not deemed to have passed GNG just because they have campaign coverage — every candidate always has campaign coverage, because giving equal time to candidates in elections in their coverage area is literally the media's job. So if that were how it worked, then our established consensus that candidates are not inherently notable would be completely meaningless, because no candidate for anything would ever be unable to show coverage. Rather, to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL on the grounds of his media coverage, that coverage needs to explode well above and beyond what every candidate is simply expected to have, in some way that would surpass the ten year test for enduring significance (such as Christine O'Donnell) — we need concrete and credible reasons why his candidacy should be seen as so uniquely important that people will still be looking for an article about him in 2030 regardless of whether he wins or loses, not just "campaign coverage exists today", to deem a candidate notable enough to exempt him from having to win. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tim Smith (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidates are not deemed to have passed GNG just because they have campaign coverage — every candidate always has campaign coverage, because giving equal time to candidates in elections in their coverage area is literally the media's job. So if that were how it worked, then our established consensus that candidates are not inherently notable would be completely meaningless, because no candidate for anything would ever be unable to show coverage. Rather, to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL on the grounds of his media coverage, that coverage needs to explode well above and beyond what every candidate is simply expected to have, in some way that would surpass the ten year test for enduring significance (such as Christine O'Donnell) — we need concrete and credible reasons why his candidacy should be seen as so uniquely important that people will still be looking for an article about him in 2030 regardless of whether he wins or loses, not just "campaign coverage exists today", to deem a candidate notable enough to exempt him from having to win. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tim Smith (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidates are not deemed to have passed GNG just because they have campaign coverage — every candidate always has campaign coverage, because giving equal time to candidates in elections in their coverage area is literally the media's job. So if that were how it worked, then our established consensus that candidates are not inherently notable would be completely meaningless, because no candidate for anything would ever be unable to show coverage. Rather, to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL on the grounds of his media coverage, that coverage needs to explode well above and beyond what every candidate is simply expected to have, in some way that would surpass the ten year test for enduring significance (such as Christine O'Donnell) — we need concrete and credible reasons why his candidacy should be seen as so uniquely important that people will still be looking for an article about him in 2030 regardless of whether he wins or loses, not just "campaign coverage exists today", to deem a candidate notable enough to exempt him from having to win. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets GNG per the comment above. WP:BLP1E does not apply here since Culp received national media coverage for his position on Initiative 1639 before he even ran for governor. A redirect would not be appropriate, as it would make just as much sense to redirect this article to Washington Initiative 1639 as it would to 2020 Washington gubernatorial election. Surachit (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "keep" !voters as there is no evidence that he was notable before the campaign, as required by NPOL. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * NPOL is not the only standard. Also, I'm not saying that he was notable before the campaign. Or that the campaign alone makes him notable. But I think the fact that he has received national media coverage for two separate events does make him notable. He's received significant coverage by reliable sources, and unlike what some "delete" !voters are implying or outright saying, not all of his media coverage came after he began his run for governor. Surachit (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't flesh out my argument since this looked like this was settling in the (correct) direction of a redirect to the gubernatorial race, but I also agree the GNG coverage of him (which all political candidates receive) is not enough for a stand-alone article, and he would not have been notable had he not run for office. He is not mentioned anywhere in the initiative article, so that argument fails on its face. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and complete article. Culp has impacted the right-wing ideology in the United States, and after his stand against Washington state (2018) gun issues he wrote a book "American Cop" about the experience and his beliefs, which is - at moment of writing this - #1 best seller in a niche genre (Utilitarianism Philosophy) on Amazon.com (arguably, there should also be an article about that book). No matter what the politics or our individual positions, no matter whether this candidate wins the gubernatorial race or not, he is a notable (even if mostly regional) player in right-wing influences in the politics of the United States. 50.107.157.54 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't find any reviews for the book, so it fails WP:NBOOKS. The book tour was effectively part of the political campaign, according to Crosscut:  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:49, 9 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.