Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Horner


 * 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tom Horner

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Third-party also-ran clearly fails WP:NPOL. Only routine election coverage from more than a decade ago with no claim to lasting notability. KidAd •  SPEAK  23:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Tom Horner got over 10% of the vote in state level race. The article could use some updates since 2010. I see his name in the Minnesota news on a regular basis, and as as political writer, , , , , etc. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - He continues to appear in the news.   Comfr (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ^WP:LOTSOFGHITS. KidAd  •  SPEAK  19:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Independence Party was a major party in Minnesota at the time. Mrfeek (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and no, whether you define the party he ran for as "major" or "minor" doesn't make a difference to that at all, as "losing candidate for a major party" still isn't a notability criterion. Notability is also not boosted by sources where Tom Horner is the author of content about other things, so none of Tom Ruen's hits above help at all — notability can only be established by sources where Tom Horner is the subject of third party analytical content written by other people, and the existence of run of the mill campaign coverage of a losing candidate is not enough in and of itself if he can't be shown to have garnered any non-trivial coverage in other contexts as well, precisely because every losing candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. To be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, rather, it would have to be demonstrated that either (a) he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him into Wikipedia independently of an unsuccessful election candidacy, or (b) he could show a strong reason why his candidacy should be regarded as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Neither of those things are in evidence here, however. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Bearcat said it better that I could. Just cause someone ran as a major party candidate does not make them notable, per WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Suonii180 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Bearcat. His candidacy is already covered in 2010 Minnesota gubernatorial election and is not notable enough for a standalone article. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat and WP:NPOL. --hroest 18:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2021 (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.