Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Maine

Points of interest related to Maine on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Maine. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Maine|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Maine. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Maine/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Maine

Graham Platner

Graham Platner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Oyster farmer and US Senate candidate. His initial campaign launch received a ton of media coverage, but that's not proof of enduring notability. If he loses the Senate race, will he still be getting this much media attention? Will people still be searching his name in 10 years? Previous discussions have mostly found that being a major-party Senate candidate doesn't automatically make someone notable. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Hovde. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellen Curry for an example of a candidate who generated a ton of media coverage when he first announceed his campaign, but that coverage quickly dried up and his page was deleted. I'd support a redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Maine. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this article just over an hour ago and was easily able to populate it with well-sourced content from several full articles devoted entirely to the subject, from major sources like NBC News [1], Politico [2], The Boston Globe [3], and The Guardian [4]. This is not passing coverage but real, biographical content and analysis. Frankly I'm just getting started given the amount of significant coverage this figure is receiving. See also e.g. The New York Times [5], ABC News [6], The American Prospect [7], The Nation [8], as well as local news WGME [9] and Bangor Daily News [10]. Reference to the other AfD discussions in the nom appear to be WP:OTHERSTUFF rather than testament to a consensus on the enduring significance of U.S. senate candidates. Judging by core P&G alone, this figure clearly passes the threshold of WP:GNG, and the purpose of the encyclopedia is well served by compiling this biographical information, which our readers will be very reasonably expecting to find here. Note that per WP:POLITICIAN, an unelected candidate for political office ... can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Generalrelative (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note in response to those citing WP:SUSTAINED that the part of the guideline relevant to BLPs focuses on avoiding coverage of 1) "low-profile individuals", and 2) those whose coverage amounts to little more than promotional "churnalism".

  With regard to 1), if we consult WP:LOWPROFILE, we find that Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile.

  With regard to 2), even a cursory examination of the 23 sources currently cited in the article will show that they are largely substantive in their coverage, and cover various aspects of this candidate's biography. They are in no way the type of churnalism –– based on reproductions or close paraphrasing of press releases –– that the guideline warns us to avoid.

  Further, even if one looks beyond the BLP-related content of the guideline to the part covering events and organizations, we find that the limitation is meant to cover topics which lack sufficient coverage. The sheer number of original, independent articles covering a variety of facets of this individual's life and campaign attest to the fact that the "sufficient coverage" test is met.

  I hesitate to make an OTHERSTUFF argument, but let's be real: what percentage of biographical articles on en-Wiki have this degree of high-quality, in-depth coverage? It's certainly less than half. Yes, this person may lose his race and sink back into relative obscurity, but he will remain –– due to the sheer quantity of coverage he's received so far –– more notable than most of the other people we have bios of.

  In short, the actual text of SUSTAINED does not support the arguments of delete/redirect !voters. Generalrelative (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a while back I did a small WP:BEFORE on the subject and found this coverage of the individual not relating to campaign: [11], [12]. Probably not enough but just making a note here Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the redirect I created and draftify the attempt at an article. I agree he's not notable. This coverage will pass if he loses. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm not sure a viral video is enough to show notability, sure he's cool now, but that doesn't give us notability as explained by the nom. Coverage is all rather recent, mostly around the campaign or the video. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nominating this an hour after the stub was created is demolishing the house while it's still being built a wee bit. Keep for now, as the RS added since shows sigcov; if coverage isn't sustained, then put it up again in the future. In the meantime, I'm leaning WP:TOOSOONDEL. Nil🥝 03:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect as suggested by the nom (which is common with many candidates for office). I'm not seeing any indication of military notability from the very sparse information about his service (many, many people did multiple tours in Afghanistan and/or Iraq). Intothatdarkness 14:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems like some people view the fact that candidates for office are not inherently notable to mean that candidates for office can't be notable. Platner easily passes the WP:GNG with significant coverage in local and national outlets, and even the occasional international outlet (Jerusalem Post). Adding to the source list above, he's received in-depth coverage from Reuters, The New Republic, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, Maine Morning Star, and Portland Press Herald. Some of the sources even remark on the unusual amount of coverage for a candidate: "Who is Sen. Collins challenger Graham Platner and why is he everywhere right now?" (WBUR), "Maine oyster farmer’s bid to unseat Susan Collins immediately gains national attention" (Portland Press Herald). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Maine. Candidates for political office rarely if ever have enough to meet WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Are we still talking about Christine O'Donnell? Folks can add information about the candidates to the article about the election itself if they lack the notability for a stand-alone article. If he wins in 2026 we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Maine as an AtD. First, Wikipedia is not news and it’s not a crystal ball for future notability. One-time candidates are people (at best) notable for one thing and I don’t think he is even that. I concede he does not fit perfectly into WP:BLP1E, but I think he does fit. He is only covered in the context of his candidacy. While a candidate is a high profile individual, he was not a high profile individual before his candidacy and there is no evidence he will not revert to being a low profile individual after the election which is what happens to an overwhelming majority of candidates. The event of a US Senate election is notable, but not so notable its participants should have individual-specific stand alone articles for merely any length of participation. If one conceded notability (I don’t), WP:BIO1E states as one of many candidates for the party’s nomination whose candidacy has been for less than two weeks, he is a minor participant at best and should not have a stand alone article. Relatedly, if the subject was abducted by aliens tomorrow, can anyone tell me what would be the contribution to the historic record? How has he changed American campaigning or American politics? What has even been his impact on the course of this race? And are those impacts really so great that they warrant a stand alone article for the individual? It's too soon to assume he will be a Christine O'Donnell-level note in American elections history. I also think WP:NOPAGE supports that this article be redirected to the election.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Maine per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON. I spent some time over the last year cleaning up stubs of old articles for has-been UKIP candidates who never held office and maybe ran for leader at some point, with no recent coverage. Sure, they had some coverage back in the day, but over time the articles became abandoned. I think an article for Platner, my own views aside, would be more appropriate if he's successful. PlateOfToast (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable candidate in an important Senate race. There's been a significant amount of media coverage of Platner's entry into the race. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect: Platner is currently only notable for a single event, the 2026 Senate Democratic primary. If he were to actually win the primary, there could be an argument for an article. However, as of now, he is only known for his involvement in this one event, which does not meet the notability criteria, even if reliable secondary sources exist. See WP:SUSTAINED.

Emac07 (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Maine. I wish there was some way of preventing people from creating articles based on news stories. No evidence of sustained coverage. (It would be great if there was some community board where we could vote to prevent news stories from becoming articles before they reach AFD.) Esolo5002 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Maine. This is by far the most common outcome for such candidates. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallett Brothers Band

Mallett Brothers Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notabilíty demonstrated. JohnMizuki (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:BAND. See the following reviews: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Notability is demonstrated as per WP:BAND outlines. I think it should be advised that the nominator should slow down on the sheer volume of deletion nominations to become more aware of notability requirements. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)