Ryan Binkley: I don't think recent events have changed anything, but perhaps others disagree?  Chipka ( talk ) 01:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Politicians ,  and Texas .  Shellwood ( talk ) 01:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete .  A search prior to his run for president reveals nothing that would meet Wikipedia notability criteria.  However, he has recieved notable coverage since then and I think there is a strong argument to be had that getting notable coverage during a presidential run enhances notability.  (The vast majority of candidates who run for president do not get media coverage.)  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 02:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Dratify.  Because only the presidential camapaign is noteworthy, the page should be draftfied.  There a user can convert the page into a Ryan Binkley 2024 presidential campaign article.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a bad alternative to deletion .  While I still endorse redirecting for reasons described in my ! vote, I'll also gladly throw my support behind draftifying as well as I think this is a situation where neither deleting nor keeping seem to be the right outcome.  Amended my ! vote accordingly.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Many, many news sources have talked about Binkley, much more than many individuals on Wikipedia.   In fact the New York Times even includes him in their list of main candidates running, along side DeSantis and Haley.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/politics/presidential-candidates-2024.html#binkley MannyMammal ( talk ) 03:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While he's a footnote, he's qualified for a majority of primary ballots, beat much more recgonizable names, run an active campaign.  The article also cites sources from before the election.  As mentioned, the NYT mentions him; USA Today interview and profiled him, separately.  He seems to be a borderline keep to me.   -- Zanimum ( talk ) 12:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't think being mentioned by news outlets is what we're looking for.  Article even says he's a low polling candidate, I don't see notability otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep since Binkley has gotten more major media coverage than during the time of the previous two AFD's on his article.  I'm not 100% locked in on my position.  WAVY 10 Fan ( talk ) 17:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there have been a host of news article regarding him and the frequency of his name being included in polling has increased significantly.  XavierGreen ( talk ) 02:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are numerous articles available on the subject that can help establish notability.  Here are just a few NBC News , The Gazette , Globe Gazette , and Dallas News .  Royal88888 ( talk ) 07:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on NOTNEWS concerns.  I'm a bit torn here since there is coverage, but the article's campaign section is written in a NOTNEWS/PROMO format, he barely made a dent in Iowa, and I am completely unconvinced this coverage is LASTING yet, and that he can be adequately covered on the Iowa election page.  Maybe treat like a young footballer and draftify until he's clearly notable?  SportingFlyer T · C 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The need to improve this article is pretty obvious and it should receive the relevant tags, but WP:CONTN applies.  Additionally, given the depth of personal detail that multiple non-Iowan RSs have provided about Binkley's life indicates that his life outside the Iowa race is relevant to his notability.  While not sufficient on their own, being the CEO of a somewhat successful business and the pastor of a substantial congregation both built towards preexisting notability guidelines independent of the political angle.  The concern about LASTING would apply if we didn't have already seven months of sustained SIGCOV.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Article is not in bad shape and does establish some notability on the subject.  He has also gotten coverage from the media and was even listed on the NYT for the Iowa Caucus results as well.  He's not just a 'minor' candidate.  -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk ) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete not notable outside of his presidential campaign.  Maybe his campaign can get an article, but Ryan Binkley himself does not meet notability requirements to have a page.  Scu ba ( talk ) 22:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries (or draftify ) as an alternative to hard deletion.  I'm not so sure I can give a strong ! vote for either delete or keep because I'm not really convinced one way or the other.  There's a somewhat weak case for both.  His name is a plausible search term, but notability is very tenuous outside his role as a forgettable side character in the primary elections, raising WP:ONEEVENT concerns.  Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Redirect as per this exact reasoning.  He hasn’t done anything notable other than pour a bunch of money into a political campaign that no one will remember in 5 years.  Nothing in the article is content beyond basic biographical information and saying that he ran for president.  pluma ♫ ♯ 21:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Has received coverage from multiple sources: Politico , Yahoo News , The Washington Times , USA Today ( twice ), Des Moines Register , the Telegraph , Newswire , C-Span and The Independent .  Helper201 ( talk ) 09:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Many major sources have covered Binkley and his campaign, as the article well documents.   He is not an anonymous person who simply paid the fee to be on the ballot like a Peter Jedick.  GeorgeMisty ( talk ) 19:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep he literally did better than Asa Hutchinson in Iowa, and could have a very strong showing as the only competitor to Trump in Nevada.  He's had much more extensive coverage since his first deletions.  Unknown-Tree🌲?  ( talk ) 21:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Asa Hutchison is more notable for being the former governor of Arkansas.  If all Hutchison had done was his 2024 campaign, I don’t think he’d meet standards of notability either.  pluma ♫ ♯ 21:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He Could Make A Big Push In New Hampshire and Nevada.  User:Matthew Campbell 16:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Some vague unknown future potential does not warrant current inclusion.  Longestview ( talk ) 22:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh he's going to "Make A Big Push In New Hampshire" Scu ba ( talk ) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (albeit a weaker support for deletion than in past discussions).  I simply don’t see individual notability.  SecretName101 ( talk ) 01:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] He satisfies requirements for individual notability by receiving sustained international coverage that includes substantial personal details about him: Des Moines Register June 2023 , Globe Gazette August 2023 , The Telegraph January 2024 .  WP:NPOL indicates that [a] politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists qualifies for an article.  His past roles have been discussed fairly extensively in RS media and coverage is often framed as about him, lending evidence that it is him–not his campaign–that is notable.  Indeed, one might even note that his campaign is itself non-notable, but what is notable is that he kept running despite obviously impossible odds and continued to draw some voters.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete He has no notable feats or encyclopedic reason for being the subject of an article.  He's just a megachurch preacher chasing clout in the Republican Primary for a few months.  The whole play he's making smacks of trivia.  -- Sleyece ( talk ) 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep He has been covered by many significant outlets such as here and here , and coverage has been increasing due to the declining field of candidates.  TheInevitables ( talk ) 12:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment One thing to consider is that in Nevada, since it is a proportional contest with just him and Donald Trump on the caucus ballot, he is very likely to get some delegates.  According to The Green Papers (no-consensus on reliability so take with some salt) the delegate threshold is between 3.846%-4.348% of the vote [57] JSwift49 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We can't assume what will happen, per WP:CRYSTAL .  If he does get delegates, I'd support his inclusion.  David O. Johnson ( talk ) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fair.  I'd still lean towards Keep because of his inclusion in Politico/USA Today/Guardian lists of candidates, and national polls from at least five different pollsters.  Though if he is deleted until he receives delegates I'd be OK with that too.  JSwift49 19:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per arguments raised above.  Arkansawyer25KADIMA ( talk ) 20:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I find the argument that "he beat Hutchinson, therefore he's notable" to be very weak.  If Hutchinson dropped out a day prior and didn't get any votes at all, would that mean that Binkley isn't notable still?  Not to mention that most news sources still don't warrant him a mention.  HadesTTW (he/him • talk ) 23:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep just because he's a (soon-to-be) failed political candidate doesn't mean he isn't notable; the sourcing is sufficient for an article here.  Definitely should be kept if he wins delegates in Nevada.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 23:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' - Plenty of independently published, substantial coverage of presumed reliability showing in the footnotes.  As a candidate for President of the United States via one of the two major parties, the bar against inclusion should be very, very low indeed.  Passes GNG.  Carrite ( talk ) 03:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' - Several media sources have discussed Ryan’s candidacy, including Fox News and the New York Times, he finished ahead of Asa in Iowa, and he has his own separate CAMPAIGN page.  MoMoChohan ( talk ) 08:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The second deletion required actively ignoring GNG.  This a political candidate with months of sustained RS coverage.  If we assume notability for single-term state legislators, we should should assume notability for someone who clears GNG and has received substantial (if inconsequential) votes in an election outside their home locality.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 19:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] keep : he is mentioned in numerous news articles by major sources including as the lead subject of the articles.  He meets GNG Reesorville ( talk ) 19:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: As other editors in this thread have said he clearly reaches the notability in order to have a page, plenty of people have gotten pages for much less.  TheFellaVB ( talk ) 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: He got more votes than Asa Hutchinson ...  Benjamin.P. L ( talk ) 21:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: That's not a high bar.  -- Sleyece ( talk ) 01:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: This page predates the 2024 primaries by 5 years.  User:Catgiraffe ( talk )  1:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC) What?  No it doesn't.  The page was originally a user sandbox in 2019, storing information *completely different* from Ryan Binkley, and it wasn't until 12 days ago that the page creator added the Ryan Binkley information and then moved it to articlespace.  RexSueciae ( talk ) 18:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Sufficient reliable 3rd party sources for retention under WP:GNG .  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per the rationale of the keeps above.  TuckerResearch ( talk ) 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - plenty of reliable sources cover the subject in detail.  I see no valid reason to delete.  Interstellarity ( talk ) 22:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   How many other folks have pages that are really only notable for political campaigns?  I can think of plenty, and Binkley has attracted much, much more attention than most of them.  4:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah ( talk • contribs ) Inquiry Some ! votes here reference similar pages existing where the subject is only notable for a political campaign and I am curious to know which examples come to mind for these ! voters.  Of course, a ! vote that hinges on other pages existing is an other stuff exists rationale which isn't exactly a valid argument, as it is very possible that these unspecified other articles have the same WP:ONEEVENT concerns that I have with this page, but substantiating these claims better could help to establish the existence of a precedent that might count for something as part of a larger argument.  I'd be happy to see some elaboration on claims like "plenty of people have gotten pages for much less" or "How many other folks have pages that are really only notable for political campaigns? I can think of plenty" .  I am willing to be swayed from redirect to keep, but at least as of right now, I find that many of the keep ! votes assert notability per GNG without substantiating how it is met.  Arguments like "As a candidate for President of the United States via one of the two major parties, the bar against inclusion should be very, very low indeed" are disappointingly poor (how many nobodies run for president every cycle? of course running for president as a rep/dem does not confer any inherent amount of notability.) Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:20, 25 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep