Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Moreno

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. I read this discussion as having a consensus to Keep this article. Editors who still believe a Redirect is more appropriate can bring this up on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Moreno

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bernie Moreno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political candidate. Doesn't seem like he's gotten much news coverage outside of routine coverage of his Senate campaigns. I would support a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With him being the presumptive GOP nominee and having significant press coverage he more than meets the requirements to have an article. JacobJaurigue (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - he's the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, and 'routine coverage' for a major senate campaign is usually enough to be notable. TocMan (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that claim holds water. Previous AfDs for Senate frontrunners with no other claim to notability were closed as delete -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung Cao and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Deaton. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know whether there were scandals associated with him and figured since he is a Republican that if anybody has any dirt on him, wikipedia would have it boxed in heavy type. Happy to see there is none. 2603:6010:BC00:24AD:19A0:DCA8:D0D5:6931 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the whole gay sex scandal part? Anyways, thanks for helping prove my point about brand-new accounts showing up to argue the page should be kept. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Virginia U.S. senate race is widely considered to be a safe seat for incumbent senator Tim Kaine. Moreno's race for the Ohio seat is considered highly competitive, and has received much more coverage. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's a repository of articles about notable topics. Per
WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, the voters in Ohio need information about the candidates so they can make their voting decisions — that's what Ohio's news media, and the candidates' campaign materials, are for. But it's not Wikipedia's job to maintain an article about every candidate in an election primary — our job is to maintain articles about people who have already achieved something important enough that people will still be looking for information about them 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now. That is, he'll get an article if he wins the election in November, but does not get one just for being a primary candidate in March. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with
WP:GNG. Neither of those things proves notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
He has also had significant press coverage from many different sources for his role as a candidate, his endorsements, and his scandals.
And now that it seems the primary election is going on and he has won, I believe that my position here has been further vindicated. JacobJaurigue (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, rather than being some nefarious SPA plot, it's because you nominated the article for someone who's been in the news non stop for about four days for deletion? Heaven knows people will go to Wikipedia to check out who this guy is once they read about what he's been up to, see the big huuuuge red banner at the top and think "Hey, I think this guy is notable". Also, that "brand new account" was actually created in June, it just didn't edit 'til now. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep. Reading the article it just got better and better. Hey, if it has the sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it has the sources. How does the campaign coverage cited here satisfy
WP:GNG? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
it has sources is far from enough. Those sources must be
WP:NPOL. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

*Redirect to

WP:NPOL. No prejudice against re-creation if he wins the election. Sal2100 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The significant coverage is met with recent conversations in national media
Presumed: Significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.
The sources are reliable (Associated Press)
The sources are secondary
The sources are Independent of the subject Nardo19672 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) — Nardo19672 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You can't just copy-paste the definition here, you have to actually explain how Moreno satisfies it. Also, this is another brand-new account showing up to vote keep. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing is that even if someone passes GNG, they still may not be eligible for coverage. We have long standing practice that candidates themselves are not notable just for being candidates because of the type and caliber of the news which is generated about them. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I think we can wait until Tuesday. If he loses the nominating race, then delete. If he wins, keep. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a great argument for deletion, as you are confirming he's only notable because he's a political candidate for office. SportingFlyer T·C 13:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came here purposefully looking for Moreno’s stance on LGBTQ+ issues, after reading an article on him and the AFF account. News articles often have right or left leans, and I was looking for a relatively non-biased source of information. Why remove a source of factual information in this current world of biased news? 75.165.128.33 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC) — 75.165.128.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Because that is not the role of this encyclopaedia - we are concerned about documenting lasting information. There is no reason why that information could not be found on the page about the election. SportingFlyer T·C 19:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Moreno supporters coming here with their brand-new accounts to vote keep: it's probably smart to avoid leaving a comment that makes it really obvious you don't actually care about notability and are just trying to keep Moreno's page for partisan reasons. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Ohio#Republican primary. It is standard that candidates aren't notable just for being candidates, and this individual doesn't seem particularly noteworthy outside of his candidacy, and his notability could change in the near future so I don't see a good reason not to redirect. If it is to be kept, it needs to be cleaned up at the least. And BottleOfChocolateMilk is right about all these accounts–at least three or four of the arguments presented here should honestly probably be discounted. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that some of these arguments are weaking my stance just a bit. I'm honestly surprised that no one's come in here yet accusing us of having a political agenda. Of course now that I've said that... Anyway, I do wonder if becoming the nominee now adds any notability? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Being a "frontrunner" in an election primary isn't grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and even winning the primary still wouldn't be grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But having a smattering of the merely expected
    WP:GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show enough campaign coverage to attempt that argument, so if that were how it worked then NPOL itself would be meaningless and unenforceable since no candidate would ever actually be subject to it at all anymore. The test for making a candidate more special than other candidates hinges on whether you can show coverage in other contexts besides his candidacies, to establish that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacies, but this is showing nothing of the sort.
    Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the general election, but simply being a candidate in the primaries is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    One will note that Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill is an essay that has not been vetted by the broader community and that
    the section on politicians was added to it by the above editor, who now seems to be quoting themself as an argument. Djflem (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also long-standing practice at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 10:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One will note that I didn't make anything up myself, and everything I said was established fucking consensus, that is routinely upheld at AFD, about how the notability of unelected candidates works. The bar they have to clear is permanent notability, not current newsiness — to demonstrate that a candidate is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you have to assume that the guy loses the election and then never does another notable thing again as long as he lives, so that "was a candidate in an election that he lost" is his peak notability claim for all time, and then still somehow find a credible reason why people would still be looking for information about his campaign in the 2030s and 2040s anyway. Not because I say so, but because every AFD we've ever conducted on any unelected candidate says so. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — fails
    WP:RECENTISM. Redirect wouldn't be best, as he's run failed campaigns other times, so there isn't a good single target. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are supposed to have long term meaning, not merely based upon feelings of the moment. Right now, this doesn't even meet the general historical requirements of The Political Graveyard.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Fair but I think his candidacy in this election is more noteworthy than his candidacy in the 2022 election, as he dropped out somewhat early. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In the 2022 race, he dropped out well in advance of the primary; in this race, he was the frontrunner and had Trump's endorsement. At this point, the fact that he also ran for a few months in the 2022 race is trivia more than anything. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsements don't make unelected candidates more special than other candidates Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by international newspapers does. Djflem (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely call that normal coverage for a Senate candidate. Nobody arguing "keep" seems to be able to cite any non-campaign-related coverage of Moreno. And the argument about "international newspapers" is meaningless. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - all of this can be covered on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge of the three or four or five paragraphs about Moreno into the election article (all of this can be covered on the election page) would certainly be a lot of weight about one candidate. Coatrack articles are never good. Djflem (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those paragraphs are about his campaign platform. If he loses and we remove those, there's nothing left to report on. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this guy is all over the news. Deleting his article would probably make the news. Abductive (reasoning) 22:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This guy is all over the news" is A. subjective, and B. not a valid argument for notability. What's going to happen
in ten years when this campaign is long forgotten and Moreno is no longer "all over the news?" Are people still going to be searching for information about him? Can you cite any news coverage about him that's not related to this campaign? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I cannot imagine that any admin will agree with your argument—the most specious to disgrace AfD in a good long while—and delete this article. Abductive (reasoning) 01:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most specious to disgrace AfD in a good long while– Would you mind explaining? Deleting his article would probably make the news–I agree, but I don't see how that's a reason to keep it. Well, Bottle, it seems we may have our second assault on democracy cut out for us ;) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know. In any case, no amount of haranguing here will prevent this article from being kept. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think I know. In any case, I'm not attempting to harangue; if the community decides to keep the article, then so be it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have removed some contentious controversial material pending discussion on talk page - would be good if some experts at WP:BLP can join the discussion Mr Vili talk 01:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any argument for why this page should be kept? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is good sourcing and the person meets GNG but currently the article has some severe BLP issues Mr Vili talk 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article even further with sources that meet
WP:SIRS, including an entire piece about him by Cleveland Scene, another piece about his appointment to the MetroHealth board from the Plain Dealer and an article about comments he made during COVID-19 by WKYC. The case for Moreno passing GNG is clear. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The case is far from "clear." So it seems like the only non-campaign-related coverage is a couple of Plain Dealer articles and..."Automotive News." I'm not convinced. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's zero reason for you to exclude all campaign-related coverage as conveyors of notability, given he *is* a political candidate. If it was just run of the mill "Moreno to host rally", "Moreno announces such and such thing", I'd understand. But if you look at the sources, you've got elongated profiles of him, reports about dirt coming out about his past, news articles being written about the guy - all stuff written specifically about Bernie Moreno, indicating that he is a notable person. But even taking your desire for "only non-campaign related coverage" at its best, you've got multiple articles in reliable sources specifically about him with the various Plain Dealer articles and WKYC (and the
WP:BLUDGEON), but given at least one other editor has switched their vote over the actual provision of these sources I will leave this reply. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Please familiarize yourself with
WP:NPOL. Having a chance of becoming a U.S. Senator does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
NPOL is totally irrelevant here as the ONLY thing that special subject notability guideline does is offer some presumed notability to certain government officeholders (a freebie, as it were), nothing more. Djflem (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL establishes that "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." The user I was replying to tried to claim that Moreno was notable based purely on the fact that he is an unelected candidate for political office. Seems relevant to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He just won the Senate primary in Ohio, this point is no longer true. 2600:1014:B189:E3E0:8120:CB44:1B9C:8D6E (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like folks should pay attention to who Donald Trump endorses before flagging stuff like this. Tanukichi23 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanukichi: Do you think that's how we run an encyclopedia do you? AusLondonder (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he has received widespread coverage after winning the Republican primary for the 2024 Senate election in Ohio, which is a statewide race and widely considered to be a highly competitive race. I would support deletion if this was a U.S. House or state legislative race, but because this is a race for statewide office he has sufficient notability. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to what policy or guideline says that being a major party candidate for the US Senate means you're "entitled" to a Wikipedia page? Does this apply in any other countries? AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete instead of adding various perspectives? Mr Moreno is obviously a real person of public interest. If elected to Congress, he will also become someone particularly influential. As a result, people will naturally want to learn facts about him. It doesn't make sense to remove the article. If someone has issues with the man, they could just add facts to the article. By removing the article, there's less of a chance for people to get an unbiased view. 2607:FCC8:FFC0:5:5C63:D3DD:3558:C75E (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because everything in the article is directly related to the fact he is a current candidate, and all of that information can be covered on the page about the election. Candidates who lose are generally not notable enough for an article - we need to make sure that he has lasting notability, and the vast majority of the keep !votes here violate
WP:NOTNEWS. If we'd delete the article if he lost, which several keep !votes are suggesting, then we need to redirect and cover his candidacy on the election article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
"Why delete instead of adding various perspectives?" - Okay, then should Nella Domenici and Ty Perkins also have articles? They are just as notable as Bernie Moreno if our criteria is that low. Which shouldn't be the case. We should have higher criteria for articles concerning politics because this could potentially turn into campaign propaganda ifwe are not careful with these pages. Radiohist (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not what the encyclopedia is here for. We're not merely a fact depository. Same goes with the other IP comment copied from the talk page. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I'm not even from the United States but I have been following the Ohio Senate elections and was surprised Bernie Moreno had no Wikipedia profile until days ago. It is great that he now has a page, so why would anyone even think of deleting such a notable personality's profile. Bernie has been dominating the news for weeks now, and there is a clear huge public interest about his life Applehead1000 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreno hasn't been a notable figure in Ohio politics in any way. Regarding the fact he is a nominee for senate, well, so are Nella Domenici and Ty Perkins, but they don't have wikipedia pages. Because all three are notable for just one event.Radiohist (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per arguments made by User:Ser!, this article seems more than notable enough to be kept. Zinderboff(talk) 06:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG per Ser! Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A modern nominee from the U.S. Democrat or Republican parties for a federal position is inherently notable. Coverage of his COVID controversy in 2020 adds further credibility that he was a major community figure prior to the last four months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While not all major-party Senate nominees pass
    WP:10YT, but it is my belief that the article would still pass both even if he were to lose. If past elections and current fundraising are anything to go off of, the race between Brown and Moreno is likely to be one of the most contentious, most focused-on, and most expensive races of the cycle and having a Wikipedia article for the candidate would be certainly within Wikipedia's guidelines, even in 10 years. I certainly don't think the article at its current state is as in-depth as it can or should be, but nevertheless, Bernie Moreno will with all certainty be one of the most notable non-incumbent figures of the 2024 Senate elections, making him deserving of an article now and many election cycles down the road. AnOpenBook (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Moreno&oldid=1215074615"