Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Stanton (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 delete. Consensus is that he fails our notability guidelines for politicians, soldiers, and does coverage of him during the 2011 airport lawsuit is not sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stanton (Politician)

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

Political candidate with no reliable third party sources indicating notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN: unelected politicians are generally not regarded as notable merely for standing as candidates but must have reliable sources independent of their candidacy. Tassedethe (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration of Mr. Stanton being a notable CANDIDATE, I submit that he is the first Libertarian senatorial candidate to participate in a state-wide primary. True, that isn't independant of his candidacy, but it is historical significant. PaulNeb86 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So would I be correct in saying that I only need to find independent sources indicating that he's a notable candidate? --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general political candidates need sourcing to show notability that does not arise from their candidacy i.e. they would be notable even without standing as a candidate. Sources related to the election (candidate profiles, political reporting etc.) are not usually enough to confer notability. But there can be exceptions... Tassedethe (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stanton will be in the polls, if he performs well enough to make the Florida Senate debate would that be an acceptable exception? --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN (and WP:POLOUTCOMES) don't suggest that making a debate would make someone automatically notable. A decision would be made on the quality of sources, and by the discussion here. Tassedethe (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A Libertarian candidate for the US Senate w/ less than 3K votes in the party's primary isn't going to get much coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage doesn't hold a match to inclusion in the polls, and I think the simple fact that he is the first third party Senate candidate from Florida in about 100 years makes him notable, especially if he qualifies for debates. The debate criteria is 9%, and if he makes that in the first three polls I think he should stay, as it would mean he would very likely perform well in the Senate election. --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant, in-depth, reliable third-party coverage indicating notability. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An as yet unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for winning his primary, or even for getting into the debates — if you cannot demonstrate and source credible proof that they were already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of their candidacy (e.g. preexisting notability as an actor, a sports figure, a musician, a writer, a holder of a different notable office, etc.), then they have to win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability because of the election itself. And for added bonus, this is written like a campaign brochure, not an encyclopedia article, and even incumbent officeholders don't get to keep that kind of article. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about Mr. Stanton's notable airport lawsuit that determined a federal law banning the distribution of the Constitution in airports and defined airports as not public. --Alec Holbeck 00:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk • contribs)

Delete, not notable in military service, fails "Soldier" and at this point, not notable as a politician so fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SOLDIER; insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added several sources and tried to make the tone more neutral. Stanton was in the news in 2011 for his TSA protest and lawsuit, and again this year for running for Senate and winning the Libertarian primary. Galaxiaad (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on polling in the upper single digits in the third largest state's US Senate election, he's notable enough. The airport lawsuit was not notable, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.