Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Trauner

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 no consensus. ansh666 20:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close addendum: there was a comment added between the time that I opened the AfD page and closing that I didn't see. While the NC close stands, I'd say it leans closer to consensus that GNG is met, though not all the way there. ansh666 20:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Trauner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of tiself, and the expected level of campaign coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL: campaign coverage always exists for all candidates, so a candidate only clears the bar if the sourcing demonstrates him as a special case over and above most other candidates. But that's not what the sourcing does here, and he has no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There's quite a few references here, this isn't this guy's first political rodeo, seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Active candidates and local politicians are not inherently notable, but 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" per WP:POLITICIAN. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it doesn't matter if it's his first rodeo or his tenth — it matters whether he won a rodeo or not. Every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage — if all a candidate had to show to be deemed notable was that some campaign coverage existed, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable candidate. To be deemed as passing GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, a candidate does not just have to show a handful of campaign coverage — he has to be able to show that his campaign coverage exploded so far beyond what every other candidate could also show that he's got a credible claim to being a special case. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what the rest of the community says; there's a reason why I voted "weak." PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial candidates can be notable, even though by definition they do not win. I haven't yet made up my mind about this candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a lot more than just WP:ROUTINE local coverage to make a perennial candidate notable. Lyndon LaRouche, sure. John Turmel, yeah. But not every single person who can simply claim to be a perennial candidate. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any independent notability other than his candidacy from the references in the article. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is always coverage of a candidate for public office. That alone is not a sign of notability. We have deliberately decided that every candidate for the US congress is not notable. Nothing short of every candidate for US congress being notable would make Trauner notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Gary Trauner is well known in Wyoming and national political circles, and nearly won election to the U.S. House by less than a percentage point in what was nearly a major D upset, even in 2006. He's still a prominent figure in the DC state and Wyoming politics. Scanlan (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes a person got in the process of not winning the election is not a notability claim in and of itself. Either he wins the election or the election is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. And just asserting that somebody is well known in national politics isn't a freebie that exempts you from having to show and source the fact as true — but none of the sourcing or substance here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - he's becoming close to a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a perennial candidate is not an automatic notability freebie either, in the absence of much more than just local attention. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has met GNG through independent media coverage, and this article has 26 citations. There is enough info for this to be considered a full article, and not a stub.Narayansg (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to recount those citations with an eye to the fact that some of them are primary sources that can't assist notability, and virtually all of the rest are the WP:ROUTINE local coverage that every candidate in every election could always show. Nothing in the range or volume of sourcing makes him special at all — every candidate everywhere could always show every bit as much sourcing as this. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The difficulty with perennial candidates (or near perennial candidates) is that there is not a great place to redirect the article to. Our usual outcome for members running for Congress is a redirect to the appropriate election page - in this case, there are three possible redirect targets. --Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2018. He is not known outside of the Wyoming region / Not a national figure. Redditaddict69 (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)Redditaddict69[reply]

• Keep Based on the content of the article and references, Trauner passes WP:GNG - there's a range of substantial coverage in reliable sources over several years, and he has held elected positions in a school district and water and sewer district (this article confirms that those are elected positions). This is more than just routine coverage of a candidate for a particular race. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Probably fails NPOL and is a perennial candidate, so nowhere really to redirect to. However, I think I am seeing just enough in the way of sourcing for GNG to be met, albeit barely. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:38, 5 August 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.