Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanner Ainge


 * 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 Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. (non-admin closure) f  e  minist  15:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Tanner Ainge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive notability claim to date is being a candidate in the primary for a future election. As always, this is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article out of the election itself. The media coverage shown here is not strongly demonstrating that his candidacy is more notable than the norm, either -- it's virtually all local to either the district where he's a candidate, or the city where his dad was prominent enough that it's newsworthy because dad rather than because Tanner. (And because notability is not inherited, the fact that he's the son of someone notable does not make him notable in and of itself either.) And even on volume of sourcing this isn't showing anything more than every candidate in any election could always show. In fact, I would have speedied this, except that this is the third time it's been recreated after having already been speedied twice. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 7 if he wins the special election, but nothing stated or sourced here earns him an article today. Restoring the redirect, per Muboshgu, would also be acceptable — but whether deleted or redirected, the title should probably be salted given the repeated recreations. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either Danny Ainge or Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. Why people insist on making these redirects I create into articles is beyond me. He has no case for GNG or NPOL. But, he is a valid search term based on his candidacy and lineage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per GNG. Google News immediately throws up multiple (though admittedly fewer than I'd like) independent RS focusing on him (there's even an RS documenting that the 'national media' are focusing on him), incl. one as geographically farflung as the New Zealand Herald. Given relatively small number of sources and their focus on his candidacy and paternity, redirecting to his father's article might be acceptable, with the info there, but that he's received significant coverage for the "wrong" reasons (and offshoots of that argument) does not a compelling case make. Advocata (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Independent news coverage in the special election. KingAntenor (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Every candidate in every special election always generates news coverage, because covering local politics is local media's job. So such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, and cannot be used to mount a WP:GNG claim, in and of itself, unless it (a) explodes to a volume wildly out of proportion to what's simply expected to exist (i.e. the media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell), or (b) it demonstrates, by virtue of the fact that he was already getting coverage in other contexts besides the election, that he already passed GNG for some other reason before being a candidate. Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians, however, are expressly designed to prevent Wikipedia from turning into a repository of unelected political candidates' campaign brochures, so the mere fact that coverage exists in the context of the election itself does not automatically make someone notable for our purposes — because coverage in that context never, ever, ever fails to exist for anyone. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a glorified CV on an non-elected candidate. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep--Tanner Ainge is not just one of many candidates. He is in a head-to-head race in a special election that will soon gain much national attention  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blovin93 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * — Blovin93 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The number of candidates does not impact notability. Also, as a factual correction I'd like to note he is one of sixteen declared candidates (13 R, 3 D). Signed, Mpen320 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2017 (CT)


 * Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. His only "claim to fame" is being a candidate in an election (which is not inherently notable) and being the offspring of a notable person (which is not inherently notable). This reeks of someone putting this up as free publicity for a congressional campaign. I fully agree with Bearcat on all points. Signed, Mpen320 (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (CST)
 * "Keep" -- Tanner Ainge is a legitimate candidate in the GOP 3rd District Primary. Articles written beforehand should not be in consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgordonw (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * — Sethgordonw (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Being a candidate, "legitimate" or otherwise, in a primary is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. The only two ways a candidate can get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate, without having to win the election first, are (a) they can be shown and properly sourced as having already cleared some other notability criterion for some other reason completely independent of the campaign coverage, or (b) the campaign coverage explodes far out of proportion to what could be routinely expected to always exist for every candidate in any election, such as what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010 (i.e. her article cites over 160 sources, because the coverage globalized into a firestorm.) Neither of those conditions is being shown here at all. (And just for clarity, note that I placed "legitimate" in quotation marks not because I'm calling Ainge's legitimacy as a candidate into question, but because per WP:NPOV it's not Wikipedia's role to decide whether any candidate in any election is a "legitimate" one or not — either they are a candidate or they're not, the end, and no candidate gets treated differently than any other candidate on the basis of subjective interpretations of their legitimacy.) Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Plenty of RS coverage.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete notability is not WP:INHERITed. Also doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. The community consensus has been that being a candidate for the national legislature is not a claim to meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG. The current consensus is that electoral campaigns are events and the electoral contest is notable, while the individual participants are not (unless they meet WP:Politician or WP:GNG independent of the campaign or subject to coverage that is "far" out of proportion to what is expected). For subjects running for the U.S. Congress, a redirect is appropriate to the page about the specific race in question. --Enos733 (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. Agree with argumentation laid out by . Sagecandor (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Utah's 3rd congressional district special election, 2017. This article appears to have been written as a soft campaign piece: if this kind of article were allowed, every candidate would have their own article. Per the policies cited by, should be merged. Lolinder (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2017 (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.