Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Armstrong (U.S. Coast Guard officer)

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. Tone 09:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Armstrong (U.S. Coast Guard officer)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. No significant press coverage, little other than Libertarian Party related coverage and passing mentions. Vermont (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. US Presidential candidates, unless they're from the major parties, don't generally rise to notability, and he's no exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Armstrong is given significant non-trivial coverage in no less than 4 notable and reliable sources that are provided: [1], [2], [3], and the Pacific Stars and Stipes article which is viewable on newspapers.com (couldn't find a sharable link, but did include the pertinent details - date, author, etc. so it can be looked up). Of the ones cited, he is the main subject in more than one, and they all predate his presidential campaign. They also cover a time span of nearly a decade. That should be sufficient to establish his notability outside his campaign. It is also worth noting that none of sources that cover his campaign are affiliated with the Libertarian Party, but rather are secondary non-partisan reputable news and journalism sources. There is enough valid coverage to justify the existence of at least a stub article, and there is no compelling reason to delete it. Sal2100 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first of your "notable" sources is an interview, the second barely covers anything (the writer talks about the lunch he had with the subject - must have been a slooooow news day), and the third is a mention in the announcement of the opening of a counseling center. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first is a feature story with Armstrong as the main subject, it is not done in the standard Q & A interview format. The second and third are stories deemed newsworthy (slow news day or otherwise) by sources that pass WP:GNG and seemingly pass the WP:RS sniff test. Add in the Pacific Stars and Stipes article (which can be looked up) and the significant coverage in the Reason article (Reason is a national publication), and I stand by my contention that this a WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some coverage already in 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. Maybe move to a better search term 'Ken Armstrong (Libertarian canditate)'?, leave link in Ken Armstrong, and delete or merge to the primaries article if they want any of the content. The Reason article should make it a valid search term.—eric 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a redirect to the 2020 Libertarian primaries article, and if not closed as "keep" should be restored as such. It that happens, keeping the edit history would be prudent so content can be merged as suggested. Sal2100 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being a candidate in a political party primary is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running as a candidate. But the sources here are not strong enough to make him much more special than other candidates: of the ten footnotes here, two are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all (never "source" anything to YouTube clips, ever!); many of the remainder are not substantively about him, but merely briefly mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about something else; and the two that are actually about him are both just short blurbs, neither substantive enough nor numerous enough to claim that he passes GNG. Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so such coverage does not automatically get the person over GNG — if all you had to do to give a candidate an exemption from having to pass NPOL was to show some evidence that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. The key to making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on candidacy grounds is to show that his campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the norm that he's got a credible claim to being much more special than other candidates, but that's not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.