Mike McFadden: Fails WP:GNG .  Running for the US Senate in 2014 created a rush of coverage tangentially related to McFadden, but really about the election he ran in.  No sustained coverage appears to exist.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Minnesota .  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep McFadden received significant coverage in the 2014 Senate election in Minnesota and has multiple sources cited in his article.  As far as I know, sustained coverage of an individual is not necessary to keep an article.  Why nominate this article now for deletion after 10 years of being on Wikipedia?  Billybob2002 ( talk ) 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:BIO1E : people not notable outside of one event are not likely to require their own wiki articles.  McFadden has no notability outside of the 2014 United States Senate election in Minnesota .  Why nominate now?  Because I just found it now.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 19:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NPOL and coverage is routine, to be expected of any candidate.  WP:1E applies here: "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person."  He should be covered at the election page.  The rush to create BLPs of people known only for an election campaign is highly problematic and unencyclopedic.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 20:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect >>>> 2014 United States Senate election in Minnesota , the "event" with which is is associated, in keeping with above editor's suggestion that he be covered at the election page.  Djflem ( talk ) 05:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as per our usual outcomes.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and/or redirect .  As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the merely expected and run of the mill campaign coverage received during the election campaign is not in and of itself sufficient to claim that they would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy NPOL: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would get that exemption and NPOL itself would never apply to anybody at all anymore.  So yes, a non-winning election candidate does have to have sustained coverage in other contexts outside of campaign coverage to get an article.  Bearcat ( talk ) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as a failed candidate not otherwise notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:58, 1 April 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: redirect