Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Young (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 keep‎. ✗plicit 02:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Young[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)

This person does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:NPOL. People do not become notable just for running as candidates in elections they have not won. The notability standard for politicians is holding a notable office, not just unsuccessfully running for one. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Full disclosure I participated in the last AFD and my vote is unchanged. I think strict enforcement of WP:NPOL on candidates is good since every cycle we get a lot of non-notable candidate articles. I still think Young is different because he's run so many times over a decade there is enough WP:SIGCOV out there to write an article and meet WP:GNG. This is like his ninth campaign, and I think him winning a nomination last cycle and the party refusing to endorse him is kinda notable. I'd like to see this article kept and improved instead of deleted this time.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Young has been run so many times that he meets the WP:GNG. I think there is enough WP:SIGCOV, simply because he has run so many times, and that he claims that the Kentucky Democratic party has rigged primary elections against him. Along with the Kentucky Democratic party refusing to endorse him. FatCat96 (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have gone over this before. Running once or twice does not make one notable. Once a perenniel candidate runs more than 7 or 8 times he becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TulsaPoliticsFan and Bearian. Although the subject fails criterion #1 of WP:NPOL, he passes criterion #2 having drawn significant coverage as a perennial candidate. Sal2100 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: True, he does not meet WP:NPOL, but he does meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV due to him running so many times over the course of 10 years. FatCat96 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speaking generally here, as I haven't taken a look at the article and as such will not be casting a !vote, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that (in general) simply being a longtime perennial candidate equates to notability. Curbon7 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Merely being a perennial candidate should not denote "automatic" notability. In this case, however, the subject has received significant coverage beyond mere routine campaign coverage. In part for his notoriety as a perennial candidate, and in part for his controversial conduct as a candidate (his own party's refusal to endorse him, his allegation of a rigged primary). It is for this reason that I (and apparently others) have concluded that he passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 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.