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. Consensus is in favour of deletion on the grounds of not passing WP:GNG or WP:NPOL and the lack of reliable sources at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Brian Forde (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable political candidate. Article created by a member of his campaign. Џ 14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, but seems to meet WP:GNG (e.g. 1, 2, ...). Should be cleaned up, though. -- Ruhri Jörg 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete political candidates who do not meet the guidelines for politicians should not be kept on the misleading view that lots of coverage in the news is enough to meet GNG. Wikipedia is not meant to include all people who ran for office, and yet we could for any political candidate find enough information to claim passing GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Serving as a senior advisor in the White House could get him an article if he could be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it, but this is extremely dependent on primary and unreliable sources (content published by his own employers, YouTube and Vimeo videos, sources where he's the bylined author of the content rather than its subject, etc.) rather than reliable source media coverage about him — and even the sources which are real media mostly aren't about him, but just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being primarily about something or someone else. And no, campaign-specific coverage does not magically GNG a non-winning candidate for political office either, as every candidate in every election can always show some of that — if "some campaign coverage exists" were in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from NPOL on the grounds that they'd passed GNG instead, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would literally mean nothing anymore. So no, none of the sourcing here is solid enough to make him notable: the key to making a candidate notable enough for an article is to show that either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate per se, or (b) he got so much more coverage than other unsuccessful candidates also got that he's got a credible claim to his candidacy being a special case — but neither of those things are in evidence here at all, and the simple existence of some campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 16:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete promotional campaign article. Fails WP:NPOL and the coverage of him is simply because he ran for office, and I don't see anything non- WP:ROUTINE in the article itself. SportingFlyer T· C 23:10, 28 January 2019 (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.