Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Tyler (politician)

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. I am happy there is an actionable consensus here, particularly given the uncertainty of those leaning to keep. If anyone wishes to redirect this, that is their prerogative and I would not find that objectionable. Also, as a potential WP:TOOSOON, recreation after additional reliable coverage should not be prejudiced per the outcome of this debate. KaisaL (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Tyler (politician)

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

Non-notable political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. He drew some coverage this week for a billboard that says "Make America White Again", but this act does not establish WP:GNG. It's more WP:BIO1E, if that much. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article thinking that all the coverage Tyler has been getting makes him notable, but I see why one might think otherwise. If other users think he's not notable enough, I'd be open to making this a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2016, where there's already a short blurb about him and the sign. He, his sign, and the surrounding controversy are definitely notable in the context of the election. But maybe he's not notable enough for his own bio. I'll leave it up to the other editors to come to a consensus. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates for US house seats are not notable. In this case, the coverage is trivial, and driven by various attempts to attack other people. The coverage has little to do with what this guy is saying, and it is actually a bit hard to believe this guy really believes his rhetoric, as opposed to he is using it to try to attack others rhetoric. Either way he is just not notable.03:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Failed? The election hasn't even happened yet! FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I find it highly unlikely that he doesn't really believe what he's been saying. There doesn't be a reason why a businessman would risk a boycott by publicly espousing white supremacist views if he didn't actually believe them. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. If he wins, does anything else newsworthy, or if coverage of this one event blows up even bigger, then the article can be recreated, but until then, it's WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Fieari (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he gets over some other notability criterion for some other reason besides his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an NPOL pass for the election itself. But nothing here demonstrates that at all — a brief blip of media coverage related to a single controversial billboard just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of sustained permanent encyclopedic interest. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after much thought. The case could be made that we don't want Tyler getting more publicity. However, I think it's more important, with the Southern Poverty Law Center, to know as much as possible about white supremacists.Amyzex (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the SPLC's job, and I fully support them in it. But it's not our role to create a special exemption from our notability rules just to help name and shame the racists — the combination of our neutral point of view requirements, which prevent us from explicitly calling it out the way the SPLC can, with our notability standards for politicians, which would require us to single this guy out as somehow more notable than the norm for non-elected candidates in order to keep the article, would combine to create an effect that some readers could easily misconstrue as an endorsement. Bearcat (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician; more or less a piling on, coatrack attack page due to the individual's racist views. We don't bend inclusion rules just so those we deem worthy of public scorn are held up for additional public scorn, which is what is going on here. Carrite (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Both WP:Politician and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2016 (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.