Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate McMurray (2nd nomination)

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 . Academic Challenger (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nate McMurray (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails WP:NPOL. Compositionally identical to the 2018 article, except for one section. scope_creep^Talk 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Democratic nominee in a safe Republican district is not notable just for running, and the primary has not received much coverage. In the unlikely event that the candidate wins, then the page can be restored. KidAd (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you serious? He has received far more than normal coverage. There are enough references to meet WP:GNG.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really notable outside of his campaign. I'm not seeing anything outside of normal campaign coverage. Also, as a not to the closing admin it appears McMurray is canvassing through his campaign's social media. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well anyway, I wrote the article and I have nothing to do with him. But ignore those comments at the top.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice article, yet I have to agree with the comments of KidAd and GPL93. McMurray is not really notable outside of the election and it is unlikely that a Democrat will be elected in a traditionally Republican district. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why is it being considered for deletion? The information it contains is accurate. Or is it just that his political opponents don’t want him to have visibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.147.143 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article on Nate McMurray should NOT be deleted. It is well researched and entirely factual. I am a donor to Wikipedia and respect your independence. Do NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grass Is Always Greener (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) — The Grass Is Always Greener (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete he is an unsuccessful candidate for congress. We have decided that the normal level of coverage these people get, even in tight races, is not enough for notability. With extremely rare exceptions we need coverage outside the context of the election and significant amounts of it to show someone notable. We do not have that here.Signed by user:Johnpacklambert. Unusual missed by signature by editor. scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsuccessful candidates are generally not notable, he is no exception. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of whether the election in question is a past one which the subject lost, or a future one whose final results are still pending, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not already won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. And the fact that the candidate can show some evidence of campaign coverage does not in and of itself get them over GNG as a special exemption from our normal practice for candidates, because every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, which means every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and the rule itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. So to get a candidate over the notability bar, you need to show one of two things: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can show such an unusual depth and range of reliable source coverage that you can credibly claim his candidacy as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, for some reason that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things are on offer here at all. And no, it isn't an ideological bias either, because the same rule applies to all candidates regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans, and regardless of whether the incumbent is a Democrat or a Republican. So, no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, since his notability claim will thus have shifted from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is a valid reason for him to already have a Wikipedia article today — being a clearinghouse of campaign brochures for current election candidates is not our job. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of this article is about the elections he has run / is running in, as opposed to being about him. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, he's got solid credentials and it could be expanded significantly. Got lots of media attention as well. Kingofthedead (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2020 (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.