Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Strouse

:{{la|Kevin Strouse}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Strouse Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kevin Strouse}})

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only routine coverage of non-notable candidate for office. Tiller54 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Restore Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2014#District 8, which should (edit: not) have been removed. Lock if necessary. Dru of Id (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

::I undid the re-direct only because he unilaterally re-directed an article without going through AFD. Are you saying it's appropriate to re-direct an article without going through AFD? This is a genuine question, since I did not think that was the case. Anyway, there's no need to lock the page, since I won't undo the result of AFD. Orser67 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia's processes are actually designed for AFD to be the last resort whenever possible, rather than the first. A redirect that's been disputed does need to then come to AFD for clarification rather than being re-redirected a second time, but it's not at all mandatory that AFD has to weigh in before somebody can deem it redirectable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm not seeing the notability Bali88 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Restore Redirect A redirect is a usual outcome for candidates to a national legislature per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep well, I know I'm going to lose this one, but again, he has significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, which is prong three of wp: politician. WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically mentions an outcome where a candidate was deemed to meet notability reqs. And I do think candidates, when sufficiently covered, are notable. Orser67 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

::Every candidate in any election will always garner some degree of media coverage, because local media have a public service obligation to grant equal time to candidates in a local election. Our standards here are different, however. While we do allow some "special case" flexibility for an unelected candidate to be considered notable enough on that basis alone in rare cases (mainly a candidacy that turns into a major national media firestorm on the order of Christine O'Donnell), we do not allow for every candidate in any election to be presumed notable on the basis of routine election coverage alone — unless there's a legitimate claim to be made that the candidate has become a topic of significantly greater than usual encyclopedic interest, a candidate normally has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for us. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as an unelected candidate with no strong claim of passing WP:POLITICIAN. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the election, but a candidate is not entitled to an article on Wikipedia just for having his name on the ballot. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect per normal practice, he doesn't exceed notability threshold otherwise, yet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

: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.