Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Cameron (lawyer) (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. The candidate won his election, and is now notable beyond any doubt. Let this be a lesson that the week before an election is not a good time to test a candidate's notability at AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cameron (lawyer)

[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)

Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected politician, all coverage of him is routine political coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 13:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Greg "Scumbo" Stumbo must be getting worried to have people attack Daniel's page 10 days before the election,OUTRAGEOUS! Let the voters decide!Gemofadeal (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a repository for people's campaign brochures. People get Wikipedia articles for holding notable political offices, not for running for them, so Daniel Cameron was never entitled to have an article on here in the first place. It is not our job to give "equal time" to every candidate in an election; it is our job to have articles about people who have held office, not people who are "notable" merely for running as candidates. Obviously it will be keepable if he wins, but merely being a candidate was never legitimate grounds for him to already have an article before election day. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--KEEP ; the election is in a couple of weeks, I agree let the voters decide! Plus what has changed since the first nomination for deletion was defeated?SDEditor101 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination was closed as no consensus, not "defeated". And secondly, it's not our job to be a voter information service by keeping articles about unelected candidates for office just because there happens to be an election underway — if a person wouldn't have met our notability standards outside of the election period, then they aren't given a special inclusion freebie just because they're currently campaigning for a political office they haven't already held. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On balance, this should be deleted because nearly all of the significant coverage of the subject is about or through the lens of the 2019 Kentucky Attorney General election. There is also no sense that the subject has received national or international coverage that is more notable than most other statewide candidates (see Christine O'Donnell). However, as SDEditor101 points out the election for this race is November 5, so I believe there is no harm to the project to wait 10 days to see if the subject becomes notable for holding a statewide position (see WP:NPOL). --Enos733 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair - I noticed this at NPP when I was clearing mostly association football articles and didn't check to see if it had been previously AfD'd (I assumed it hadn't, it was late) and was so clearly non-notable to me that I went ahead and started this. I didn't realise the "November election" meant ten days from now, thought it was for next year when America is scheduled to vote. Not sure whether to withdraw now... SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't withdraw, because it will just have to be renominated a third time if he loses next week — it's best at this point to leave this discussion open and just let it ride out a relisting for further discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was precisely my dilemma. Strong request for a relist for whoever sees this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simmer on the back burner. At this point, the election is literally just three or four days after this discussion's first seven-day closure date — and even that's only if there's actually a consensus to assess by this Saturday, which does not look very likely. If it needs more input, this gets relisted — and if it gets relisted just once, then it automatically straddles election day, so that by the time it's actually closable again we'll already know definitively whether he won or lost. If he wins, this will have to be kept; if he loses, it will have to be deleted. So at this point we may as well just let it simmer for the few extra days it'll take for the voters to write the answer for us. By rights, the article should not have survived the first discussion at all, because being a candidate in an election he had not already won is not a legitimate notability claim — but rightly or wrongly, the first discussion was closed no consensus (which is not the same thing as keep), so we are where we are. As soon as we know one way or the other whether he won or lost, I'll revise my vote accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Endorse Bearcat's vote to put the discussion on the back burner. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the election results. Érico (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They just called the election for Cameron. He may not have been notable 3 hours ago, but he now as inherent notability as an elected state attorney general in the US. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:47, 6 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.