Deletion of Wink Hartman

Comment: Apart from the CNBC article, all of the coverage is  political coverage, or coverage that is to be expected of a political candidate. I do not see anything which would get him past the  test we use for political candidates across the world, not just in the United States, meaning the person was either elected or received non-routine coverage, or coverage that goes above and beyond candidate announcements, endorsements, withdrawals, or routine local coverage. This was discussed during the recent United States campaign last year and did not pass. I also do not see notability on other, non-political grounds
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:GNG)

Comment: and/or '''redirect'''. Firstly,  most certainly does still apply to articles about people, not just articles about events — kindly note that if you actually ''read'' it, it ''does'' explicitly provide examples that pertain to the notability of ''people'' involved ''in'' events: wedding announcements, crime logs, tabloid journalism, etc. So just because it's in the notability statement on events doesn't mean it's inapplicable just because the article's topic happens to be a person — ROUTINE ''is'' still a consideration, because his potential notability claim ''derives'' from his participation in an ''event''.Secondly, there is an established consensus that when it comes to non-winning political candidates, they are ''not'' automatically deemed to pass  just because some campaign coverage exists, because some campaign coverage ''always'' exists for ''every'' candidate in ''every'' election — so if "some campaign coverage exists" were all it took to get a candidate over GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, then NPOL would be worthless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all anymore. Rather, getting a candidate over GNG requires one of two things: either evidence that they ''already'' cleared GNG for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article ''anyway'', such as preexisting notability in another field of endeavour, or they got so much ''more'' coverage than every other candidate also got that they've got credible grounds to be deemed ''special'' (e.g. because their coverage ''nationalizes'' well ''beyond'' where it would simply be ''expected'' to exist.) But neither of those things are in evidence here at all: there's no credible evidence that he would have already gotten over a notability standard for other reasons independent of the candidacy, and there's not nearly enough campaign coverage being shown to deem him more special than every other candidate who got the same amount of local coverage as this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, and thus passes .  Many of these are feature stories written about the man.  Such coverage is the antithesis of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: simply clicking on the "news"  reference above shows an significant amount of coverage, more than enough to pass the |general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails  / ; coverage is routine or passing mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:NPOL)

Comment: We had a line break above by a relisting concerning WP:Routine that was argued against being used on this subject but a "keep" !vote did make the application. The "standalone notability of people involved in events", especially when sources are used on specific events to advance the notability of a subject, would certainly invoke the use when assessing a source. This type of discussion is more relevant in another area, however, I concur so unless further contested WP:ROUTINE can and has been used. When I looked at the article I see what I refer to as ''routine coverage'' of an event of a politician running for office. A person thinks about running for office (may run again) so it is reported, a person decides to run then withdraws, and so forth is routine coverage of a politician running for one or more offices (didn't continue for governor so now the Senate). It appears the subject is wealthy, maybe bored, or maybe just has enough money to have several businesses and to take the time to champion personal causes. Possibly the subject would like an article on Wikipedia. The pening up a can of worms|can of worms| is the "wide-reaching consequences" that any person running for any office could be "considered" notable for an article if we don't consider a basic test: otability (people)|''"For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life."''. If I counted correctly four sources are from "Kansas.com" (Wichita Eagle), two from "Kansascity.com" (The Kansas City Star), so are from two sources for any notability consideration. Some of the sources are plain routine news coverage good for content verification, he went to college, bought a racing team, ran for governor, possibly the Senate, picked as a running mate they apparently lost. I don't think the local or regional reporting rises to match the bar of notability for a stand alone article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:N)

Comment: The only notability criteria that the subject has a chance of passing is / (which we must remember also gives a presumption of notability and not a guarantee). In this case, the 2012 CNBC article constitutes significant coverage by a reliable secondary independent source. The other given sources are entirely coverage of his runs for congressional and gubernatorial office by local news outlets. This does fall into ''the spirit'' of . Indeed, countless individuals who run for political office garner coverage from local news outlets specifically about their campaigns but should fail notability for lack of anything else and that should similarly apply to the local coverage for this article. Nevertheless, the subject's involvement in industry and entertainment may provide some other sources that will demonstrate notability (there seems to be a lot of sources with passing mentions of the subject but I haven't found one with significant coverage on him outside of his two political campaigns
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BASIC||WP:ROUTINE)