Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Bryce

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. Sandstein 10:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bryce

Randy Bryce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable perennial candidate who has ran for office 3 times but he hasn't won anything. He hasn't ran for office higher than US house, and I don't see any evidence of other notability. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep, his 2018 run received a huge amount of media attention Kingofthedead (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus that Shahid Buttar didn't have notability, and I would argue that his claim to notability is similar to Randy Bryce's as they both challenged the sitting speaker of the house and don't have much other notability. If you challenge the sitting speaker of the house you are bound to get some media attention, but that isn't enough notability for an article by itself unless you win. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Buttar now redirects to the election in which he ran against Pelosi.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I'm not familiar with the Buttar discussion but consensus was probably wrong there and it would be wrong to delete (or redirect) Bryce as well. Non-victory doesn't mean he's not a public figure who garners interest from a broad audience. — Mainly 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm familiar with the policy on candidates rather than victors, and while I disagree with it generally I especially disagree with it in the case of a person who has received so much scrutiny. — Mainly 20:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to meet GNG, a number of sources profiling him in detail. Eldumpo (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, but the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP: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 always be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate for office notable enough for a Wikipedia article, said candidate needs to pass one of two tests: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, or (b) he can demonstrate a reason why his candidacy would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (think Christine O'Donnell), such that even if the candidate loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again as long as he lives, people will still be looking for information about him in 2030 because of the sheer lasting importance of his candidacy itself. All coverage is incidental to only one of his three campaigns for office. The fact that there is almost no mention of his candidacy in any news, books, etc. all of three years later is indicative that it was not influential enough to pass the O'Donnell test.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He has in-depth press coverage from a variety of reliable sources. Just to highlight a few cited in the article: [1], [2], [3]. This is significant coverage meeting WP:GNG. This coverage cannot be dismissed with WP:BLP1E — among other things, he continues to give quotes to the media and seek public attention, and therefore is not a low-profile individual. Nor can the coverage be dismissed by an appeal to later developments. Notability is not temporary. Once he has been the subject of significant coverage, he is notable permanently, irrespective of later events or the amount of later coverage. There is no notion of "inherent un-notability" that negates general notability simply because he ended up losing. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, he was not elected (unlike some other politicians), and most of the publications about him are in local press. But I counted at least 3 publications in major newspapers that describe him in non-trivial manner. This is a good enough reason to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he was a failed candidate for the US House. It is high time we declare that all such people are just plain not notable unless there is coverage not at all related to their candidacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, He has run for high offices several times, although never won. The coverage in reliable sources makes this a week keep. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he is a perennial candidate who got scads of coverage in 2018. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete losing candidate who has never appeared to receive coverage outside of his losing candidacies and not independently notable. We can discuss him in the articles of the elections in which he ran, but I don't think he's up there at "perennial candidate" status yet either. SportingFlyer T·C 11:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unlike most political candidates this person received coverage on a national scale, meaning that they clearly rise above the routine coverage that all candidates receive, making them exceptional enough to deserve an article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2021 (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.