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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Nathan Larson (political 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)

A gadfly political candidate and provocateur. No SNG is met. The coverage of him is largely "look at this terrible person running for political office", I feel it is "mere short-term interest" or "a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". I also don't believe an article can be written that isn't either promotional, an attack page, or both. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 22:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 22:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article cites multiple reliable sources about the candidate. [1] [2] [3] etc. I know that such a concept is almost inconceivably archaic to most, but I don't think you should delete the encyclopedia information about a candidate simply because you don't like the candidate. Wnt ( talk) 23:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep While he does not meet wp:NPOL he passes the wp:gng as he has garnered quite a bit of coverage in independent reliable sources. Zingarese ( talk) 00:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I wrote the article after observing that he had not only huge amounts of coverage arising from his current candidacy (extending to The Independent in the UK, and among articles I did not use are Metro UK and Newsweek, plus numerous TV stations, one of which interviewed him) but also two Washington Post articles from his state candidacy last year. Enduring coverage. (He was also discussed by the candidates in last year's gubernatorial campaign in Virginia. That merits only a mention in an article about him but also contributes to his notability.) Yes, it was a challenge to write it fairly; I had initially posted a heads-up at the BLP noticeboard, and subsequently at User talk:Drmies, where I expected both the page owner and the many experienced talk-page watchers would both keep an eye on the article once I wrote it and tell me straight if I'd been non-neutral, and the article has attracted some of the WP:UNDUE that I had feared, but I hope I did a fair job. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The article, as it currently stands, is neither promotional nor an attack page; indeed, Yngvadottir did a fine job of writing a neutral article, and should be commended. Likewise, the sources for the article are, more or less, unimpeachable; why, just the other day, I read the Eli Rosenberg article about him in The Washington Post.
  Anyway, regardless of my personal disdain for the candidate, he undoubtedly passes WP:GNG: he has received significant coverage (generally an article or so, each time) in reliable sources (I will grant that The Tab isn't all that reliable, in my opinion, but the Post, USA Today, and The Independent clearly are) that are independent of the subject (which is a given, given his views). Sure, he may be a fringe candidate that is doing this as a stunt, or whatever, but the subject is indubitably notable, and the article is perfectly fine as it is. — Javert2113 ( Let's chat!) 04:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Awful human being that he is he has certainly garnered a lot of attention, that means he is notable (for all the wrong reasons, but still notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable. Unfortunately. Then again, it takes all sorts. God in his wisdom made the fly, and then forgot to tell us why. [4] Andrewa ( talk) 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep I vote delete on a lot of politicians for failing WP:GNG. Having read his article and having checked the sources, I wish he did. SportingFlyer talk 05:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:BASIC. A nice job writing an article about a distasteful subject. I hope to never have to read it again. Meters ( talk) 06:56, 15 June 2018 (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.