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 keep. Non admin closure. Withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) Thechased ( talk) 01:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Deez Nuts (candidate) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Seemingly pointless article, addressing "Deez Nuts" as if it's a real person while totally ignoring the satirical nature following the original video. Relevancy is little for this to be an article, even the original video is not relevant enough to have its own article (and it is not even referenced in this article as having anything to do with why "Deez Nuts" even exists). A Rolling Stone article does not automatically mean it needs its own article here. This does not need an article, it is not a "real" candidate despite being referred to as one, and it references a satirical 'meme' that doesn't even have its own article, nor mentions it. Thechased ( talk) 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 22. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, (or go to the talk page and discuss a rewrite and/or re-name so it is about the "campaign"), at least for now. This topic clearly has enough reliable-source material "out there" to meet WP:General notability guidelines absent WP:ONEEVENT concerns. It's too soon to delete it based on "one event" issues. If the media attention dies out in the next few weeks, we can argue whether WP:ONEEVENT overrules WP:Notability is not temporary in this case. If the media attention continues, then the wiki-notability of either the campaign, the person, or both will be firmly settled. I strongly recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination and see how this "campaign" plays out, then start a move/rewrite discussion on the talk page if he want to make the page focus on the "campaign" rather than the person. Note - I put "campaign" in quotes because he's obviously not running for office (he's ineligible due to age) but he may be actively campaigning to get his ideas out there or for other reasons besides a desire to sit in the Oval Office. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Agree w/ davidwr above. Clearly passes WP:GNG, and there is precedent for articles on satirical or "unconventional" candidates (e.g. Pigasus (politics), Vermin Supreme).-- JayJasper ( talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is a candidate who polled above several more serious candidates and got serious press coverage as a result. Yes, it's a joke candidacy, but Wikipedia has other articles on joke candidates, and there are multiple reliable sources (not just Rolling Stone) about the subject. The article should be cut down to bare verifiable facts and focus on the campaign, yes. It mostly has been. The fact that nonsense was added and removed before is not a reason to delete. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 19:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. He has aquired notability through multiple mentions in reliable sources, including prominent polling organizations, and mutliple news outlets. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 20:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep In-depth coverage in The Guardian, CBS News, TIME magazine, and Rolling Stone overwhelmingly establishes general notability. The fact that the candidacy is not serious is not a deletion rationale, nor is the assertion that this information is not relevant to an encyclopedia. Content concerns should be addressed at the article's talk page. As davidwr points out, ONEEVENT may make a move appropriate in the future. FourViolas ( talk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - And I recommend that this matter be closed soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk • contribs)

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.