Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Brown (politician)


 * 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 Scott Taylor (politician). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Shaun Brown (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Does not meet either criteria. Comatmebro (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win. For her to warrant an article, it would be necessary to demonstrate that either (a) she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway, or (b) her candidacy received so much more (i.e. nationalized) coverage than every candidate in every election always gets that she would have a credible claim to her candidacy being a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those things is shown here at all, so a smattering of the purely local campaign coverage that's routinely expected to always exist for all candidates is not enough to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Her candidacy was apparently important enough that someone who worked for the incumbent Republican was allegedly willing to risk prosecution to get her on the ballot. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm talking about. We need to see nationalized significance on the level of "Christine O'Donnell denies being witch and generates national cable-news firestorm that lasts for weeks, to the point that ten years later she's still about a million times more famous than the actual senator she lost to" or "Jon Ossoff gets distinctly unusual volume of nationalized coverage as first national "referendum" on the presidency of Donald Trump, to the point that four years later he's still about a million times more famous than the woman he lost to", before her candidacy would be enduringly "important" enough to earn her an article — "somebody on another candidate's campaign did something unethical to help her get onto the ballot as a spoiler candidate and here are three pieces of purely local coverage to prove it" is not enough. The basis for an article about her would be evidence that the entire world will still care about any of this in 2029, not just evidence that she's currently slightly newsy in her own local media market because of other people's actions. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, she wasn't nationally famous, but her case was unprecedented enough that they had to come up with new regulations to prevent something like this from happening again. This was cited as having profound implications statewide, because it was the first time that a candidate certified for the ballot by the State Board of Elections had ever been kicked off the ballot. So, it's of more than local interest, but of less than national interest. Anyway, undecided about the best way to proceed. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Scott Taylor (politician). Not notable enough for a standalone asrticle. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Scott Taylor (politician). Agree with . Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. The fact that she was used as a political pawn can either be mentioned in the article for Scott Taylor or in the article about the election Bkissin (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the idea of a redirect here if we think that's better suited then a full on delete. Comatmebro (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.