Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Nehlen (3rd nomination)

:{{la|Paul Nehlen}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Nehlen_(3rd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Paul Nehlen}})

This is a bit of a procedural AfD. This was redirected per a discussion last year, and deleted through a discussion not even a month ago. I suppose it's possible that in all of ten days there was a sufficient deluge of coverage so as to change the outcome of the last AfD, but it doesn't seem particularly likely. GMG^talk 15:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - it was last deleted about a week ago. It should be a candidate for speedy deletion. The figure doesn't appear notable, aside from being a failed political candidate who runs against Paul Ryan (probably as a publicity stunt).RobertGraves (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment  Speedy was requested 15 minutes after creation, and rejected 13 minutes later, saying, "there are hundreds of new news articles about nehlen since the AfD, many foreign. I believe he may now meet notability guidelines as a 'notable white supremacist', as most of the new news articles are focusing on that".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

::Actually, G4 has been requested twice, and twice declined. GMG^talk 17:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

::*Yes, with the edit summary, "WP:G4 'excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version', and the content here is completely different".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There actually has been a considerable amount of new press coverage of Nehlen in the past two weeks, based on outrageous things he has said or Tweeted. I am undecided about his notability at this time, and will take a "wait and see" attitude for a few days. I encourage anyone interested in this debate to take a careful look at the news coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Nehlen has received President Trump's tweeted support and Nehlen has received close to 16% of the Republican vote in Wisconsin. His candidacy is a good example of how far support for the policies he espouses extends in the Republican party. He seems a borderline case in that he was supported by Breitbart and President Trump but has recently lost that support. In future he may be usefully cited as an example of how far the GOP party was prepared to go to support right wing policies before being forced to pull back by the electorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kujiranoai (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Postpone. Keep. Honestly, I didn't want to comment on this request, but I concur with Cullen on this. We should really look to see what occurs in a year or so and revisit this topic then. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• :Edited to keep per LtNOWIS.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong delete short of winning the congression election, Nehlen has no notability. 15% of the primary vote means he was trounced, just plain trounced. That he is even running again after such a throughout trouncing shows that at least within the Republican Party, Representative Ryan is well established in this district. Something may happen in the next few months to change that, but as of right now Nehlen is absolutely not in any way, shape, means or form notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Postpone or Keep The recent spike in news interest and the subject's actions indicate this may be a worthwhile topic to keep track of. New article is substantially different from the prior version due to recent events and coverage, and it does no harm to keep it pending further developments. At a minimum this may be an important point in the history of U.S. political discourse to record. Shorn again (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• :Edited to keep per LtNOWIS. - Shorn again (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Lots pf very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep significant coverage by major national media so meets GNG (WP:POLITICIAN is irrelevant). Royalbroil 17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: "Postpone" is not a valid choice. Either he's notable now, in late 2017, or he isn't. If he becomes notable in a few months, then turning the article from a redirect back into a normal article is a matter of a few mouse clicks. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• :Fixed. I will say though that editors will have to follow Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. So it's not going to be a walk in the park. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Move to draftspace - The article should not be kept, and it sounds like multiple editors are hesitant to delete only because the subject person may become notable later. If people don't want to lose the work that's been done, the answer is simple: Move the article to draftspace. That way there will be less effort, if the subject person ever becomes notable, to restore the content already prepared. Editors who said "Postpone" should be !voting to WP:DRAFTIFY, not keep. (To be clear, if not draftified, in the alternative I would !vote strong delete per WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.) Shelbystripes (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. We do not keep stuff on a "wait and see" basis just because the topic might become more notable in a year than he is today — we judge an article's notability and keepability entirely on the matter of whether he already clears an inclusion standard today — and non-winning candidates are not more notable than the norm just because of who's endorsed them, either. WP:SALT also needed, because this coming back so quickly after the second discussion plainly shows that people are planning to simply ignore AFD consensus about him. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

::Bearcat Nehlen might still meet WP:GNG though. Recent articles include: [//www.nationalreview.com/article/455161/paul-nehlen-controversy-shows-breitbart-opportunism] [//money.cnn.com/2017/12/27/media/paul-nehlen-steve-bannon-breitbart/index.html] [//www.washingtonexaminer.com/adviser-says-steve-bannon-cut-ties-with-paul-nehlen-far-right-challenger-to-paul-ryan/article/2644476] [//www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/27/ryans-pro-white-primary-foe-denounced-by-breitbart-after-his-anti-semitic-tweets/?utm_term=.7a391170723d]

::It's only clear that he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

:::Media coverage never, ever fails to exist for any candidate in any election anywhere — so every candidate for any office whatsoever would always pass GNG if "some media coverage exists" were all it took. What it takes to make a non-winning candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on that basis is not "does media coverage exist?" — because, again, there's no candidate in any election anywhere for whom it doesn't — but "does a reason why the world will still need this article to exist ten years from now exist?" Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Move to draftspace per Shelbystripes. Should/Could this get relisted to get consensus on Draftify or Delete? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS subject isn't notable outside of some recent news stories. Truthsort (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - This article has been deleted already and whatever small Twitter coverage on him there was has died down. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment  A check on Google news shows that the top three links are 3 hours old, 7 hours old, and 7 hours old.  I also checked on Google books, and see that the topic has coverage there.  {{pb}}The last (second) "AfD" was a classic case of a non-deletion content discussion that spiraled out of control into a delete.  Considering that the nominator was not a delete !vote and one commentor advocated keeping, seven editors !voted delete, while seven advocated to not delete.  Three of the deletes there cited BLP1E, which is totally inapplicable as BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals, and even when applicable is a merge argument.  The third !vote asserts, "Multiple non-notable acts do not add to notability."...This is not helpful, since coverage of "acts" accumulates.  The fifth delete !vote claims that the "keep" !votes haven't done enough to satisfy him/her, even though this was a non-deletion discussion.{{pb}}The WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete#4 states in bold, When in doubt, don't delete.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, preferably leading to a merge  User:Ethanbas at the 2nd AfD provides nationally recognized sources such as newsmax and the Washington Times, which shows GNG.  The topic has been attracting attention for more than one event, so BIO1E doesn't apply.  GNG is only a subset of WP:N, and WP:N does not require editors to maintain this article as standalone.  The forum here isn't suitable to solve the problem of where to merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- as a candidate, does not meet WP:NPOL. The subject is best known as an alt-right troll, but, as of yet, he does not meet WP:NFRINGE just yet. Delete is the best option here. Recent sourcing relate to his 15 min of fame due to a Twitter spate, but it's WP:TOOSOON -- the subject is not encyclopedically relevant just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

:*Draftify -- change from "delete" per discussion below. Not notable just yet. "Delete" would be my second choice. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- He clearly meets the criteria of a "local nominee or politician who has recieved significant coverage". In the last week he has had detailed profiles by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Forward, Buzzfeed, The Week, and National Review. His notablity will only further increase from here. If he was a random challenger I would agree. However, recent events have clearly shown that he is a notable figure.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Move to draftspace until the next backdraft. Didn't know about this option until this AfD. Otherwise, it would be a weak keep. He probably has enough notoriety… I mean notability for that. Not sure where it could be merged into. Sorry for the lack of argument. StrayBolt (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - subject has enough reliable third-party coverage to pass WP:GNG in my opinion, but I would not be opposed to it being moved to a draft space if it comes to that. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.