Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bevin


 * 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 Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 . With views split right down the middle I think there is room for looking at the wider consensus on political candiates to break the tie. Essentially, the wider consensus is that unelected candidates are notable in the context of the election and I have rarely seen such articles kept unless they are separately notable. Infact. this is almost like a special case of BLP1E. On that basis I think the arguments to redirect to the election are the more firmly grounded in policy. Spartaz Humbug! 09:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Matt Bevin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for primary candidate. He's president of a small family business, a specialized firm that probably does deserve it's WP article--I'm not challenging that. But president of such a firm, especially by someone who has not has a significant role in developing the company, is not notability.

His political role will be sufficient for an article if he wins the election for senate. I am personally of the opinion that if he merely wins the Republican primary he will also be notable, as he would then be a major party candidate in a two party system for a major national office; however, desirable as I think it would be to cover such people, the consensus has generally not been with me unless there is significant additional notability.

But he has not even won the primary. That is the essence of political not-yet-notability, and nobody could rationally suggest that running in a party's primary for the Senate qualifies for coverage in a general encyclopedia.

There are references; there always are. They are  either PR, local coverage, routine listing,  or trivial intra-party disputes. Or just the report of an endorsement. Every political candidate no matter how trivial the office always gets endorsed by somebody more important, or by some particular ideological group--that is not notability, and only worth including when he does become notable. .  DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: he's notable as a major primary opponent who has received a significant amount of local and national coverage. His candidacy has receive a significant amount of coverage as one of several Tea Party-inspired challengers to Republican incumbents, and Bevin is particularly notable as the challenger to the Senate Minority Leader. If the issue is the lack of citations to national newspapers, than I'd suggest that people should add those citations rather than proposing deletion (it's certainly easy to Google e.g. "Matt Bevin" "Washington Post" and find plenty of sources). I'd argue that running in a primary is notable when it receives significant media attention from reliable sources; in fact, third factor of Wikipedia's notability policy on politicians allows for exactly that. Additionally, I do think it's relevant that the article has been viewed almost 6000 times in the last 30 days and has been contributed to by numerous editors. Orser67 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect- To United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 where he's already appropriately mentioned. Discrete search term; restore and develop if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect- To United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 per Dru of Id. This is a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for a national legislature. Enos733 (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am basing my comments partly from hearing local news.  This candidate has received ongoing independent coverage since announcing, and the announcement has national implications in that the Tea party is willing to take on the Senate Minority Leader.  The problem with Courier-Journal links such as this Bluegrass poll is that they become paywalls thirty days after the article is published.  But this article starts with a picture of Bevin.  If you dig down, you will see that this particular poll shows a Fall Senate race between McConnell-Grimes has Grimes leading by four points, while a Bevin-Grimes race has Grimes leading by five points.  IMO, the viewpoint for Wikipedia is that this candidate has received so much attention in this race that his name will still be remembered if he ever decides to do something else, i.e., the threshold of long-term notability has been crossed.  United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014, on the other hand, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as well as it would fail WP:SPECTACLE if someone were to write such an essay.  In that article we find the words "turtle", "jerk", and "insulting".  Redirecting to that article would be a BLP violation.  Articles about future events need to be in draftspace, not mainspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Information is relevant to a person in the news, and will contribute to the history of the contest of ideas within the Republican Party and the conflict between the Tea Party groups and traditional Republican party leaders. Ggallman (talk)
 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 per the usual procedure and WP:POLITICIAN. At the moment he's just a potential candidate who is trailing badly in the polls.  If he somehow wins the primary he's pretty much a shoo-in, but I don't see we should throw out long-standing precedent just because someone from the Tea Party decides to throw their hat in a ring.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Yes, he is "trailing badly" in the primary poll, but it doesn't matter if the topic gets ongoing independent coverage. As per the nutshell of WP:N, we consider not standings in a poll, but "evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention."  Why do you argue that he is a "shoo-in", when he is trailing, by five points, in the polling for the Fall election?  WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 as per above. I see nothing in the article suggesting that he has any significant notability above being a senatorial candidate, which by long precedent we have held to be insufficient. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think that the standard DGG is applying - that notability should be conferred after a primary win - is appropriate in this case. First, Bevin is challenging the majority leader, not just any Senator, and at a time when the majority leader is unpopular and vulnerable. That means that this senate seat election has received a lot of press coverage. Second, over the past few years, tea party challengers have been much more of a factor in elections than primary candidates have been historically. In several cases (Mike Lee, Joe Miller, Richard Mourdock) tea party challengers have defeated sitting senators in primaries. Bevin may lose - press reports describe the campaign as "fizzling" - but there is still a lot of press attention nationally on Bevin's candidacy. That indicates sufficient notability for an article.GabrielF (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - large amount of mass media attention, as outlined above. Neutralitytalk 05:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...which is why we can justify an article on the election, but not on the person. We have held for a long time that candidates do not inherit notability from the contest, especially in cases where the candidate isn't a politician. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is also significant coverage on the man personally. Neutralitytalk 14:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The candidacy is getting attention. People are attending to the idea of a newcomer who can take on a leading figure in his own party and really mean it.  The proof is in the polling that shows that Bevin relative to McConnell only trails by one point in the Fall election.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 as per above. I don't see that he has any significant notability on his own and this is clearly promotional. --PDX er1 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2014 (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.