Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Binkley (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

I'm failing to see strong enough notability here. Nothing much new seems to be added since the last deletion. He had a few outlier polls where he had surprise single-digit support (unclear whether it was genuine support for him). That seems to be the only thing that inspired the re-creation of this article.

Replace with redirect to the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries page. SecretName101 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Christianity, and United States of America. SecretName101 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: substantial coverage in many reliable sources. Deletion rationale seems to be WP:IDONTKNOWIT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti Routine campaign coverage is not sufficient REGARDLESS of how reliable the publisher is. The MEAT of the coverage has to establish notability, not just the mere fact that an article was published about them. SecretName101 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously fulfilled. The earlier version of this article sourced exclusively from coverage of the announcement, justifying the first AfD's deletion outcome. Since then, coverage of his campaign has appeared repeatedly in RS media with specific emphasis placed on him and his candidacy. See the cited Globe Gazette and the Des Moines Register pieces from August that are specifically about him. Combined with more recent passing references in the national press—such as the referenced ABC News article from August—clearly indicate sustained notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, routine campaign coverage does not amount to notability. The MEAT of what news articles establish about the subject must. In fact, a lot of the articles within this page are curiosity pieces, with some loudly taking the tone "who the heck is Ryan Binkley?" (evidencing that he is not of much –if any– note. SecretName101 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sustained, extensive RS coverage in curiosity pieces are enough to satisfy GNG; see gun-powered mousetrap. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about an inanimate object, perhaps. Not in a WP:BLP of a person, which can easily shade into self-promotional advocacy if we're not vigilant. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in 2024 if he wins the election. People do not get articles just for declaring their candidacies in future elections per se, and the existence of the merely expected campaign coverage is not sufficient to hand them a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL: unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) you can establish that they were already notable enough for articles for some other reason independently of being a candidate, or (b) you can establish that their candidacy is such a special case, of uniquely greater importance than everybody else's candidacies, that it would pass the ten year test for enduring importance. That is, the question isn't "is his name present in the news cycle today?" — it's "if he loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again for the rest of his life, so that the candidacy itself represents his peak notability claim for all time, then will people still be looking for information about it in 2033 and 2043 and 2053?", and nothing here demonstrably passes the latter test. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MILL gives a standard for An ordinary political rally, candidacy for office, candidate announcement, or press conference. It's an unclear standard: a presidential candidacy with both sustained national and local coverage specifically regarding the candidate and their positions—particularly an individual who has served in roles that could lend themselves to notability—is not the equivalent of a couple newspaper articles on a mayoral candidate who didn't receive any support beyond his mom and a neighbor. It is fuzzy, but we have good examples of how to apply GNG here. For example, the curious case of Deez Nuts was an unserious presidential candidacy with sustained national and local coverage. Will someone come back to Deez Nuts in 2036? Who knows—so we lean on GNG, not our own guesswork, to determine notability. We can build on this with WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In this case, we have plenty of SIGCOV in RSs. I could also break out the chart thingy... ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in every election everywhere always receives enough campaign coverage to at least attempt the argument that GNG had exempted them from NPOL's ban on unelected candidates — which means that if "campaign coverage exempts a candidate from NPOL" were actually how it worked, then every candidate in every election everywhere would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would never apply to anybody at all anymore. So the existence of campaign coverage isn't an automatic GNG pass in and of itself — the test hinges on whether there's a compelling reason to treat Candidate X's campaign coverage as more significant than Candidate Y's campaign coverage and Candidate Z's campaign coverage. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as NPOL "ban" on unelected candidates. The guideline, which is subordinate to GNG, simple allows for some elected officials to gain "presumed notability". That's it. Djflem (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Binkley has done nothing of note prior to his run for president, and hasn't appeared once in any reputable news report prior to his announcement. Scu ba (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To complete the quote: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Says nothing at all about prior to anything or in comparison to anything else, that's just made-up non-policy/non-guideline stuff. Djflem (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. per WP:NPOL "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability.". I don't see WP:IS/NOPOV WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, addressing the suject directly and indepth. WP:BLP has strict sourcing requirements. No prejudice against recreation with WP:IS WP:RS post-election sources whihc should have WP:SIGCOV if they win the election. // Timothy :: talk 19:36, 7 October 2023 (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.