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 and redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2018. Those arguing keep on GNG grounds are not addressing the fundamental issue that coverage of candidates in elections is usually in the context of tbe election and in summary is a 1E. To overcome that longstanding approach needs a much stronger argument than put forward. The deletes therefore reflect policy, and its also true a redirect is often applied. SpartazHumbug! 06:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:BLP1E. There was one incident at a convention and all the reportage comes from that. That's not enough for WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2018, or create a disambiguation page for Patrick little, with a link to this article, and the other patrick little. its an interesting, and notable, BLP1E, and one people are likely to look up here. if its a redirect, the term should be "Patrick Little (political candidate)" not this name, cause he is not known as an engineer.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is continuing coverage beyond the convention incident, and the polling data lends it significance. I think this has crossed the WP:GNG line. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on my view, I think there are at least two events here: the statewide poll that placed Little second, behind only Feinstein, for the office of US Senator, and the exclusion from the Republican Convention, along with the denunciations by various Republican spokespeople. These are separate events, although many news stories are reporting on them together, so BLP1E does not apply. If here is a formal resolution of opposition from the Republican party, that would at least arguably be yet a 3rd event. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mercurywoodrose above that "Patrick Little (political candidate)", would be a better title, as that is what he is notable for. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not being argued that he passes WP:NPOL, but rather WP:GNG. With coverage from major regional sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle., San Francisco Chronicle, The Loss Angeles Times, The Tribune (San Luis Obispo), NBC Bay Area, and the San Diego Union-Tribune; with national coverage from Newsweek, the Hufffington Post,and USA Today, and international coverage from Al Jazeera. (and I strongly suspect others will be coming) This is well over the threshold of the WP:GNG, and thus also WP:NPOL point 3: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As I've contributed to this article, I don't feel like I should say anything, as it's a self-serving matter that I'd rather not lose my contributions. Nevertheless, keeping this article is pretty clear to this editor: there's enough coverage from national and reliable sources; and, moreover, being kicked out of the convention, with all the attendant hubbub, is one event, and the second-place finish in the poll is (arguably) another. A dated, formal resolution of opposition from the California Republican Party, should such a thing occur (unless it already did), would be a third; and advancing in the jungle primary system would be a fourth. I should also note my opposition to the page-move earlier: Little isn't and wasn't notable for his contributions as an engineer, and I do wish discussion had occurred before the unilateral move. (I would have, and do, support "Patrick Little (political candidate)".) But that's neither here nor there; anyway, keep. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add to all the above reasons for deletion that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We need to stop giving this person free ad space. Getting kicked out of the convention makes one many things. It does not go to notability. No redirect.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAP would only apply if the article were biased in favor of Little. i do not believe that it now is. This is no free advertising, it is reporting on what other independent sources have already commented on. As for Getting kicked out of the convention makes one many things. It does not go to notability. Of course it does. Anything that causes a person to be taken note of by independent sources goes to notability. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soap does apply as this is a platform for subject to present his political campaign.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and the percentage that he scored in one public opinion poll during the campaign is not an automatic "this person's candidacy is more notable than most other people's candidacies" freebie either. So that does not count as a second "event" for the purposes of exempting him from the WP:BLP1E issue. He'll pass WP:NPOL if he wins the election in November, certainly — but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify to have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. Surely candidates do not get an automatic article just for being candidates, but candidates are eligible for an article if they get significant coverage. It says so right in point three of WP:NPOL. And I think there might be an argument that major party nominees for state-wide or national office will normally qualify, and if Little is one of the top two candidates in the June 5 primary (now less than a month away) that is essentially the position that he will be in. As for being more notable than most other people's candidacies how often does a candidate denounced by the state-wide party he claims to support run ahead of all other candidates declared for that party, in a state wide race? How many candidates for US senate get international coverage? DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree all you like, but the amount of coverage that a candidate has to get in order to qualify as having "significant" coverage, for the purposes of clearing NPOL #3, is "exponentially more coverage than every other candidate in every other race across the country is also getting" — and ten citations is not enough to make that happen. Bearcat (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:NPOL says. No where on the page Wikipedia:Notability_(people) (the page WP:NPOL redirects to) does the word “exponentially” appear, and a Google search for "exponentially more coverage than every other candidate" site:wikipedia.org returns “No results found for "exponentially more coverage than every other candidate" site:wikipedia.org”. Please link to the exact page with the "expoentially more coverage” quote. This is what NPOL #3 actually says: “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 primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"” which this candidate has, in fact, met. Samboy (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every single candidate in any election anywhere always gets every bit as much coverage as has been shown here — so if this were enough coverage to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate, then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate at all. But we do have an established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates per se — so making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate most certainly does require that the candidate can be demonstrated as significantly more notable than most other candidates, and that is accomplished by showing substantially more sourcing than most other candidates could also show. I am entirely correct about how NPOL works for candidates: it takes ten year test-passing evidence that their candidacy is a special case over and above most other people's candidacies. Which is not what's in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's not an engineer, but rather a politician, and he fails WP:NPOL. There's also been some recent media coverage that refers to him only as an unelected politician. Polling well does not get you past WP:GNG, nor does causing a political ruckus in your party before an election. For an unelected candidate to pass WP:GNG, lasting significant coverage must be shown, and that's not shown here, nor is it close. SportingFlyertalk 06:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have seen many pages that has LESS information about the sub get matter this page has lots of information, Plus more News is coming about subget matter. I say keep this page for while until later this year. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not how Wikipedia works: once you're notable, you're always notable. You are arguing for "temporary" notability. SportingFlyertalk 17:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in California, 2018 per WP:POLOUTCOMES. "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." --Enos733 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of substantial compliance with the GNG or any applicable SNG has been demonstrated either in the article or in this discussion. If he does, in fact, qualify as a major party candidate for office then the article can be recreated at the proper time. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's subject is currently running for a top-level political position in the world's 5th largest economy.[1] The article cites multiple, reliably sourced references which focus on the subject exclusively. That alone gets the subject above the bar of WP:GNG's primary criterion. With elections six months from now, it's certain additional entries of note can be added to the article. If deleted we could end up in an unnecessary delete-recreate loop. For all the citing of WP:NPOL as the applicable standard this bit seems to have been glossed over: [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion. → GS → ☎ → 06:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusion standard for politicians is not "running for office", it is "won the election and holds the office". And since every candidate in every election always generates some media coverage in that context without fail, that coverage does not confer a "GNG because media coverage exists" exemption from having to clear NPOL by winning — if it did, then every candidate would always be notable and NPOL would be inherently disembowelled. Wikipedia is not news, so it's not our job to just uncritically start an article about every single person whose name happens to appear in any newspaper — a Wikipedia article does not become appropriate until a person has a credible claim to passing the will people still be looking for this article ten years from now test. Which means officeholders, not unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL strikes the right balance between recognizing the notability of certain officeholders and the recognition that most candidates are, for the most part, low profile individuals, and their only claim to notability is in the context of the campaign they are running for. (Once the campaign is over, so too is the likelihood of continued maintenance of the page). WP:POLOUTCOMES says that a redirect is an appropriate option, because the campaign is notable, even if the subject may not be. Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign material, nor should it be a collection of policy positions or polling results, or endorsements. These items properly belong on the page about the campaign. Our usual standard is the internationalization of a campaign, where people in Europe see news about an American candidate, or in reverse, a candidate in Germany is covered by Canadian press. --Enos733 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (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.