Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Broihier


 * 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 United States Senate election in Kentucky. We're close to a consensus to delete, but the redirect takes into account the substantial "keep" minority, and it's also what we usually do with non-notable candidates.  Sandstein  07:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Broihier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable political candidate. No coverage of this individual outside of his campaign for Congress. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Not likely to receive any further coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. All the sourcing is built around his candidacy, so this fails WP:NPOL and is a WP:BLP1E situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the article could be further improved to be less promotional, he has received significant coverage from reliable sources beyond local media (i.e., Newsweek, Rolling Stone) and meets general notability guidelines. "Not likely to receive any further coverage" is a prediction of the future and not a valid reason to delete. -- Zim Zala Bim  talk 17:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , a lack of WP:LASTING notability is a reason not to have an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:LASTING is about lasting events, and it also notes that "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". -- Zim Zala Bim talk 20:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Broihier finished third in a high-dollar, high-profile primary, in which he was endorsed by two presidential candidates. In their endorsement announcements, both the Lexington Herald-Leader and Louisville Courier-Journal encouraged Broihier to run for office again. He has already told the media that he is considering future races. Should he not announce within a reasonable period, deletion is warranted. But it is capricious to delete before results have even been certified, much less before a new election cycle can even begins. Barring extraordinary circumstances (death or incapacity), the work required to create and maintain an article should be preserved. --Swarles Barkley (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * if we revert it to a redirect, all the text will remain in history, ready to be restored should notability ever be established. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I came across this through other means, and I'm not advocating one way or the other, but he is not the Democratic candidate for the Senate seat. I don't know how that will affect the other !votes here, or affect future votes, but his page hasn't yet been updated to reflect that (and actually reads as if he is the candidate). Primefac (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above; subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources sufficient to write a useful article. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable political candidate. To show notability we need coverage outside the context of the election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When a policy or guideline prevents improving the encyclopedia, it is to be ignored per WP:IAR. NPOL is clearly having that effect, in this case and many other cases, so it should be ignored likewise. &minus;&minus;&minus; Cactus Jack 🌵 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete He's only notable for being a political candidate, and he fails that test - the article was properly redirected to the election in which he participated, and about five weeks ago a user who has now been banned for being a sock recreated the article. The election was a week ago. He has no other notability apart from being a candidate, and while he does pass WP:GNG that's irrelevant as there's only coverage of him as a candidate. I do not mind if the redirect to the election is restored, but he should NOT have his own article, and precedent is clear on this. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I take a position, can someone explain why passing WP:GNG isn't enough? WP:NPOL says "such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Lots of people are notable only for one role. Numbersinstitute (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not" ... and among the things that Wikipedia is not is WP:NOTNEWS, where you'll find Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. There is not going to be much of interest in someone who was only covered because they were in a primary and took third place, and if that's the only source of interest, then we can WP:BLP1E them and cover them briefly in the article about the election. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NatGertler beat me to the punch and I agree completely. The other thing I want to note is what Bearcat says below: every candidate could pass GNG based on campaign coverage alone, but the people covering the campaigns aren't necessarily choosing to cover the person but rather that person's campaign. That's why these frequently end up redirected to the election article. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per SportingFlyer. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in political party primaries, but this article demonstrates neither that he had preexisting notability for other reasons before running and losing in a primary, nor a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered more special than everybody else's candidacies. The mere existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:NPOL, because every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. And no, candidates are also not handed any extra notability points on the basis of who did or didn't endorse them, either. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. His only notability derives from running in a primary in which he came third. Unless he does something else in the future he doesn't have any lasting significance.  Hut 8.5  12:13, 1 July 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.