Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Young

: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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

=[[Todd Young]]=

:{{la|Todd Young}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Young}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Todd Young}})

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Simply trying out for a nomination doesn't make you notable. He loses my vote for apostrophe use alone. Hairhorn (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN but passes WP:GNG for the substantial coverage of his primary bid for the nomination in Indiana's bloody 9th. The news coverage of his campaign is very substantial: see [http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Todd%20Young%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn here], and [http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?q=%22Todd+Young%22+indiana&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=au&um=1&scoring=a here], and as cited by the article itself. Reconsidered, see below. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment – All seem to be passing mentions of Young. Nothing appears to be substantial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

::[http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/01/quayle-picks-dold-in-competiti.html This article] is about him. There's also [http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?id=1109743 this]. There's a lot of local coverage that I would agree to disregard (eg New Albany Tribune). But there are so many articles about the race, that mention the subject in a fair bit of depth, that in my view it amounts to significant. But I don't think its a clear keep by any means. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

:::*Comment – Perhaps the race is significant, but is he? ttonyb (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

::::That's always a difficult distinction and I don't pretend to argue that this is a clear-cut keep. In my view, the extent to which Young is covered separately (at least two articles on him, and many many articles that cover him as a genuine part of the race) gets him across the line in his own right. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

:::*Comment – The race would not be significant if it were not for the fact that rather than a grudge match for the fifth time (Sodrel & Hill), there are other very viable candidates. Also, this district is a long-time democratic seat, so having multiple viable republican candidates is significant. It is also significant because Young has had tremendouse fundraising success, raising more money than any non-incumbent in this district. Tschy (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.8.51 (talk) — 74.132.8.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::::*Comment – And how does this support Wikipedia notability? ttonyb (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

::::*Comment – Because a person "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."" I beleive the article reflects significant coverage in an important national race. Wikipedia does allow individuals that are running for office, see Rand Paul. He's not a current office holder and the race is not even that critical since it is for a vacating Republican seat. Also meets WP:GNG. Tschy (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Tschy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:::::*Comment – I see no evidence that Young meets WP:BIO or any other variation on notability. As stated above Young lacks GHits and GNEW of substance. I cannot speak to the article Rand Paul except to say that existence of another article does not justify this article. Simply put, all articles need to stand on their own merits. ttonyb (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Subject is a potential candidate for the Republican primary for a congressional seat. Sourcing is insufficient. Article is puffed up with non-encyclopedic information such as his family life and volunteering.
Delete. I've slept on this and reconsidered. The WP:GNG issue is line-ball, and the claim to notability on that ground is therefore quite weak. On that basis, his massive failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN should work against inclusion, as should the improbability that he will win, let alone get the nomination. I also wonder if, even if he's notable under WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E should apply (the one event being the campaign). In any case, I now think this article should be deleted or redirected to an article on the race itself (if one is made). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2010 (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.