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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a candidate in a party's primary race for a future election. This does not satisfy WP:NPOL in and of itself, but no other substantive claim of notability has been shown — the only other claim that's even been attempted here is that if he wins the Senate seat he'll be the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress. But Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are based on what's already true today, not on what might become true in the future, and he's far from the first person who could ever claim that they had the potential to become the first openly gay Republican congressman if they won a future election they hadn't already won — even winning the primary wouldn't actually be a historic first for gay Republicans, as Carl DeMaio and Richard Tisei could tell you. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. Bearcat ( talk) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Bearcat, I'm not all that impressed by "first" of this sort, and Barney Frank sort of made that kind of claim passe, but, well, I guess I do care a little, have we really not had anyone openly gay in the Senate yet? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. SOXROX ( talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• leaning towards Keep Looking at the coverage he's gotten. Which may be enough for notability. I'll be back. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Now thinking redirect, see below. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• This is the kind of long newspaper profile he was getting as he moved towards running: [1], much of the coverage is in-depth [2], [3], [4] not merely routine election coverage. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply

If "as yet non-winning candidate in a Senate primary" is the context in which the coverage is being given, then it's still WP:ROUTINE regardless of whether it's a fairly substantive article or just a blurb — local media have an obligation to give coverage to people who are running in local elections, so all candidates always get coverage of that type. And the last link you provided in that comment is not coverage of him, but an article written by him. Bearcat ( talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply

true. Sorry. Of course, if it was something I wrote, it probably wouldn't be in the paper. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply. He is being given this coverage because "if he wins, he will be..." etc. Well, if he wins, he will be notable, and we can write and article about him. I wouldn't be opposed to userfying this. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is all way too soon. We generally discourage such coverage of non-elected political candidates because it will remain unbalanced, lack long-term coverage and be unduly presentist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2016. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• keep I have been going back and forth on this one, and I want to rethink. again. In general, I totally agree with Bearcat's well-stated position that merely generating routine coverage while running for office does not confer notability. However, coverage does confer notability, and this is true no matter what triggers the coverage. At a certain point, coverage even of certified airheads like Todd Palin tips the balance into WP:GNG territory. A new article today, [5] seems to me to put Kefelas over that line. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Expanded article slightly, covering basics like childhood and education. Articles I mention above can also be added. Plus, let's remember that he's he not running for village council - like the usual politician pages that come to AFD. Candidates for the United States Senate do often get the kind of coverage that supports a page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete and then draft and userfy as this is still questionable including for the applicable notability, not yet a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Not only are there too many "if"s in his claim for notability, but the claim doesn't even appear to be true. The article lead claims that "If elected, he would be the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress.[3]", but the reference cited does not support that claim. And there seem to have been several openly gay Republican members of congress before him, including Steve Gunderson and Jim Kolbe. And no, he wouldn't be the first gay senator either (that would be Tammy Baldwin), although he would be the first gay Republican senator. As for his likelihood of winning the election, Maryland has not elected a Republican senator since 1980. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:54, 12 February 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.