Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Nehlen


 * 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_Wisconsin,_2016. Everybody agrees that he passes WP:GNG, but the majority also agree that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Whereas the discussion on merging is inconclusive because the target is not obvious, Craig's suggestion is excellent and solves most of the problems with the article. IMO the target already contains enough info, and there is nothing to merge, but the edit history stays intact, and whoever wants to transfer information can easily do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul Nehlen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Now that the primary is over and he's not nearly as successful as Dave Brat, we can say for certain he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I also believe that he fails WP:GNG. There are a couple of sources that discuss his primary challenge, but that will fail the ten-year test. Other sources appear to barely mention him at all, so are not significant coverage. I see two references to his campaign website, and one to a list of his patents. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete not even a nominated candidate for US congress, but only election would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This campaign received significant national coverage, so could arguably meet GNG for now. ABC News, Washington Times, Conservative Review, Business Wire. Trump gave Nelhlen's candidacy an endorsement or something close to it, then snatched it away a couple days later. Nehlen could get recruited for a position in a future Trump administration, or could get groomed for more runs for office in the future. Ten-year test isn't policy -- it might be a good idea in some situations, but in this case I'd recommend we wait to apply that test for a few years down the road. If Nehlen fades back into private life, I agree we would delete the article, but it's too early to decide. JerryRussell (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump never endorsed Nehlen. He tweeted something positive to him, that's not an endorsement. The coverage Nehlen received was WP:ROUTINE regarding the election against Ryan, where he was more a bit player in the Trump-Ryan saga than a notable individual on his own. It's never too early to delete, but it can be WP:TOOSOON to create. I argue that it should be deleted now, and it could be recreated if he establishes notability beyond this primary challenge. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: if there is another chapter to this saga in the future, how easy will it be for future editors to recover this information? If it's a simple process, I would change my vote to delete. JerryRussell (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * An administrator can restore a deleted article with one click on one button. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention this site seems to collect all deleted articles for their repository. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * News about Nehlen: He's started a pro-Trump 'super PAC', reported in three RS:
 * Does this help? I'm staying with a weak 'keep' vote for now. JerryRussell (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. A candidate in a party primary does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a party primary — even if he'd won the primary, he still wouldn't automatically get an article on that basis, but would remain not eligible for one unless and until he won the general election in November. We keep articles about the people who hold notable offices, not everybody who puts their name up as a candidate for one. And neither can a person claim to pass WP:GNG just because he happened to be running against a nationally known figure like Paul Ryan and therefore the race got increased coverage — that coverage attests to Ryan's notability, not Nehlen's, and just makes Nehlen a WP:BLP1E. And finally, the possibility that he might attain further notability in the future is not a reason to keep the article now. If he does attain further notability in the future, we can always recreate a new article about him when that time comes — but in the meantime, we do not keep articles based on predictions about what might happen, we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today. And nothing that's true today is enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. All the refs are either primary source from campaign website or secondary sources referring to him in routine coverage of a primary. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability for politicians. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Failed candidates don't meet WP:POLITICIAN; insufficient third-party RS coverage for WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How is there insufficient third-party coverage? Plenty of major, reliable national/international news sources covered him and his campaign. Is that not enough to be sufficient? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This article definitely meets WP:GNG, and he received significant national coverage, as JerryRussell pointed out above. Trump publically thanked him for supporting him, and spoke highly of him and almost endorsed him, even though he endorsed Ryan, something which was also widely covered in national news. Also, Nehlen made a campaign video that received almost 300,000 YouTube views and a lot of coverage in national news in its own right . Sure, Nehlen only received 16% of the vote in the end, but with all that publicity, one could have seriously wondered if Nehlen would pull a Cantor on Ryan. And not just that, but Nehlen is not finished -- he created a pro-Trump PAC . This article clearly, clearly should be kept, and nothing less. It is clearly notable for inclusion. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and most sourcing was during the week before; minus the quick Trump boost (and again, not endorsed by him), most of the coverage was of the generic 'meet the candidate' profiles put in by newspapers the week before, followed by 'lost election terribly stories'; the Janesville Gazette struggled to get much comment from the candidate in the first place for their 'meet the candidate' profile, and then there's some digression involving a patent for something a layman doesn't care about.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nehlen received massive coverage despite loosing the election. The huge discussions in national media about him started when he posted a campaign ad that received almost 300,000 YouTube views (which I posted above). That video was posted in early May, and coverage over him continued through early August, when the primary occurred. And Trump almost endorsed him. Is he really not notable enough after all this? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm in a market which is part of Ryan's congressional district. Nehlen was very rarely mentioned in the last couple months locally in newspapers and on TV/radio outside of being mentioned as the 'token opposition'. I saw more about him nationally in the last week of the election than I did much local coverage outside of a few 'Ryan could now win by only twenty points' stories. The Trump boost is pretty much it for coverage of the candidate nationally and only bumped the story up from the start of the B-block to the end of the A-block locally.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But he still received a lot of national coverage. That fact remains either way. Also, read WP:NTEMP. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's really not notable enough after all of this. Even if he'd won the primary, none of this would have qualified him for an article on that basis alone; he still would have had to go on to win the general election in November to become notable enough. The number of hits garnered by a YouTube video does not support notability in and of itself, because social media hit counts can be artificially inflated by SEO techniques (meaning we have no way to properly verify whether that stat represents 300,000 people viewing it once or one person viewing it 300,000 times.) Being endorsed by a notable figure wouldn't boost the notability of a candidate in and of itself, let alone merely being "almost endorsed" (which in this instance really just means retweeted, which isn't notability either) by a notable figure who didn't endorse him when push came to shove. And on, and so forth — what you need to get Paul Nehlen over the bar is a strong and credible reason why he would be a topic that people are still going to be seeking out ten years from now, not just evidence of momentary current newsiness. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In and of itself, making a YouTube video or starting a PAC are not notable, but Nehlen has received much coverage for all of these things. Simply being endorsed by a notable figure is not notable in and of itself, but Trump's actions generated a lot of coverage from national media. That made it notable. All of this things in and of itself obviously don't make someone notable, but put all these things together and combine that with massive national media coverage, and the notability of this topic is debatable in the least. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: FWIW, the national media is still talking about Nehlen . He's not going away. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * People don't get Wikipedia articles for starting SuperPACs, or for just "not going away", either. If and when he accomplishes something that makes him a topic that people will still be seeking out in 2026, then there will be a case for "more notable than the norm for a failed primary candidate" — but you haven't shown anything that already gets him over that very high bar today. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: While my !vote for "keep" still stands, if the decision is to delete this article, I recommend merging the content of this article that pertain to the 2016 Republican Primary to United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2016. Even if it is decided that Nehlen is not notable enough for his own article, the events of the GOP primary are still too notable to simply delete outright. The events of Trump not endorsing Ryan and speaking highly of Nehlen (as well as his eventual endorsement of Ryan due to pressure from his party) should be documented in the election article (they are not right now). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * !Seconded. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can be okay with that as an alternative to deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to that alternative either. Nobody has said at all that the event isn't notable enough to warrant mention anywhere in Wikipedia at all — it's just not enough to make him a suitable candidate for a standalone WP:BLP. But relevant and appropriate content, measured against WP:UNDUE, can absolutely be maintained in the main election article, and Ryan's obviously needs to touch on the primary race as well — we just don't need a link to a standalone article about him as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Merge as noted above is the best coarse of action as well since the person in question doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN.Dolotta (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I was just getting ready to support the 'merge' option, but then I thought about the mechanics. Which article would this merge into? House Elections in Wisconsin is just a list, nobody would go there looking for this sort of information. Different aspects would be mentioned in the Trump article, the Ryan article, and the general November election article. All of these places, you would want to say just a few words, and link to more information. WP:BLP1E doesn't fit because there are now two important events, the primary and the PAC, both with national coverage. Still voting Keep. JerryRussell (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2016 would be an appropriate article to merge this info with. There is nothing wrong with adding prose to this article, and even though it may be in the form of a list now, it doesn't have to be. That is an article about an election, so if the events of the election are notable, we can and should list them there. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nationally-known figure though he did not win an election. Coverage on him is extensive and national.2605:6000:FB03:1F00:1901:C0B2:4598:DD9A (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: he will be more than entitled to a Wikipedia article once he wins an election. Quis separabit?  02:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears to meet GNG, well referenced. There is no requirement to win an election ... just to have "significant coverage in reliable sources". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He doesn't meet WP:GNG if we ignore election-related coverage, which is what that policy tells us to do. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. The article has a vaguely promotional tone ("His goal is to raise over $1 million "and to spend it all on communications and ground operations in swing states where Trump could use a boost") so WP:PROMO applies, now that the subject is a private figure again. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I concur he's not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN if he never actually assumed the political position; "coverage" is not the same thing. SwisterTwister   talk  20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Wisconsin,_2016. A pretty clear WP:BLP1E case, but also a plausible search term.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:47, 3 September 2016 (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.