Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Frost


 * 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. Strong consensus that individual is notable (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  16:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell Frost

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Maxwell Frost

Political candidate who does not meet political notability as a candidate, and does not meet general notability based on the text of this article. The references have not been checked in detail, but an article should speak for itself, and this article does not provide evidence of significant coverage of the subject. Subsequent coverage between now and November 2022 will probably be about the campaign, and so will not be considered to satisfy general notability. This article largely reads like a campaign brochure. If the campaign-related material were removed, not much would be left that is not already covered in 2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Florida. There is also a draft which is almost identical to this article, so that draftification is not an alternative to deletion. Redirection is an alternative to deletion, and is recommended. I have not unilaterally redirected the article in order to avoid edit-warring, and because I am requesting a community decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics,  and Florida. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree. Now that Frost has won the primary he will almost certainly be elected to Congress. There are news articles mentioning him dating back to 2013. Several of the citations discuss him in detail, apart from just the election. Also, this article was based on the page in draftspace - see the history. Brad (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: He may become sufficiently notable, but he isn't yet. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This has now been settled since Frost won his primary election in a solidly partisan district and will be in Congress in a few months. His win was covered across the country and in several national media outlets. Because of his age and background, he has received substantial WP:RS coverage. He has met Wiki notability standards. Even a cursory Google search will easily resolve this AFD debate. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand the argument, but for all intents and purposes, being the nominee of a party in a safe district for that party is functionally no different from having been elected to an office and not having assumed it yet. The idea that this article should be deleted and posted again in two and a half months because then he'll more strictly meet the definition of notability seems pointless to me, and in any case, Frost has received enough press coverage to meet the second criteria for notability, including articles from NPR, Politico, USA Today, The Hill, Business Insider, and ABC News. ChicagoCinephile (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'm adding in some of the numerous sources coming out today after his victory. The sources linked above by already establish plenty of notability as well.--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, he's received a ton of attention from numerous mainstream media outlets. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a notable candidate with significant endorsements. --Fadesga (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Significant coverage that a WP:BEFORE would have shown you, invalidates the claim that he does not have general notability. The first sources that come up are CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and CBS among others. Trillfendi (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as he won the primary and will likely win in November. JayJayWhat did I do? 20:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as he won his primary and is the favorite to win in the fall. --User:brholden (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage his campaign has received extends far beyond mere WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage. The significant coverage he's received in numerous national WP:RS-compliant sources is enough to pass criterion #2 of WP:NPOL, and the historical nature of his primary win arguably passes the ten-year test as well. Sal2100 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As others have noted, he is notable in that he will almost certainly be elected to congress in November, and this article also details his previous work. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible keep This isn't even close. He is already has heavy coverage due to the fact that he will be the first Gen-Z member of Congress. There is literally zero chance of him losing this election. Frankly, a speedy close is in order here. Safiel (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep he's got a lot of support.--MELT1917 (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject has received a large amount of national media coverage clearly in excess of what the average candidate receives, therefore he passes WP:ROUTINE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per copious rationales above. Andre🚐 18:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It is difficult to swim upstream as local consensus can trump core understandings of how we ought to (and have) treat political candidates. The nominator is correct on policy and past practice - being a nominee of a party in the United States is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL and campaign coverage is generally seen as WP:ROUTINE. (And there are many reasons for that, largely that all candidates receive a medium of coverage and there is a tendency of campaign supporters to use Wikipedia as a campaign brochure). It happens with some frequency that a "sure" winner does lose (see some of the WP:CRYSTAL comments about India Walton, who ended up losing her election). The notability of this subject is that he would, if elected be the youngest member of the next Congress and has received a fair amount of coverage about that point, but the (one to two day) flurry of coverage about being a young nominee would probably would not pass the WP:10YT if the subject were to lose. --Enos733 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There's precedent for keeping articles of soon to be presumed notable politicians: Articles for deletion/Cassandra Fernando, Articles for deletion/Linda White (politician). In those two cases, the election that would make them notable was less than three weeks away (at the time of the AfD discussion). Donald Payne Jr and Trent Kelly were created prior to election in safe districts, one was subject to a redirect before the election, the other not. This person will (almost certainly) have presumed notability in a little more than two months; does going through the process of deletion and then recreating the article make the encyclopedia better? A dose of IAR might be worth applying here. I admit, less clear cut than an election less than three weeks away, though... Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that each of these situations are distinct. In the case of the Australian politicians, the individuals were on top of their party list and nearly assured of election because of the voting system (and the election was a couple weeks away when nominated). Kelly was redirected until the election (contested). Payne was not taken to AFD, but was currently serving as Council President of Newark at the time of the election and running to fill the remainder of his father's term of office (not taken to AFD, but I suggest a strong case would have been made for GNG coverage prior to the campaign). The point is there is no consensus for keeping candidates who win a party's nomination for US Congress, and the usual (and appropriate) outcome is a redirect to the election page until the election. Those candidates that are kept are kept for other reasons, usually because they defeat an incumbent in a party primary in the US, receive international coverage of their campaign, or there is a strong showing that the subject might meet GNG before their campaign. I would also note that a redirect could be used to preserve the content, and could be flipped after the election. - Enos733 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Linda White was assured of the seat by being the first candidate of the party's list, but Cassandra Fernando was simply the party's candidate of a historically safe seat for the party. Both of these candidates had essentially no media coverage and therefore no general notability, whereas Maxwell Frost clearly does. Those deletion discussions don't provide any precedent, as they became elected while the AfD was taking place. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Australian politicians, only one related to a party list, but the point is both were in positions which meant it was all but certain they would be elected. Are there reasonable grounds to doubt Frost will be elected?  If so, then grounds for deletion/redirection are stronger, if not, then weaker.  I'm not sure consensus can be claimed for any particular approach towards soon to be presumed notable politicians. However, it does seem that rule-following for the sake of rule-following that does not produce a positive net result, is precisely the point of applying IAR. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also the hypothetical possibility of withdrawal, disqualification and death prior to the election. I don't think the upcoming likely notability of a subject is reasonable to justify the creation of an article, especially when it could be created upon the subject actually becoming notable. However, there is clearly a loophole to this where there can be an article for a yet-to-be-notable political candidate as the AfD process can reasonably last for weeks, which is a reasonable implementation of IAR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For me, the "loophole" should only exist within the last 14 days before an election, not 70+ days. I do completely agree with you that the justification of keeping an article about an unelected political candidate must be based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, rather than the likelihood of winning an election. I have spelled out more of my criteria for political candidates here (comments welcome) - Enos733 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The subject of the article has since become notable regardless of the upcoming election result, as their strong media coverage demonstrates general notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Already has plenty of RS coverage and there is ample precedent for having articles for candidates who won a primary that is tantamount to election. Davey2116 (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2022 (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.