- 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Chris Keniston
- Chris Keniston ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Article that was deleted earlier this year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Keniston, then recreated as a redirect to his party, but was then revived as a standalone WP:BLP in August (but is different enough this time that G4 speedy is not suitable.) The subject is still a minor party candidate for president, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, but the sourcing still isn't appreciably stronger than it was the first time: of the eight sources being cited here, two are primary ones (his own campaign website and a press release from the party); three are glancing namechecks of his existence in "all of your third party options" overview articles rather than substantive coverage about him; one is a "local man runs for president" article in local media serving the town where he lives; one is a Q&A-style interview with him (which is not a class of sourcing that can assist GNG, as it represents the subject talking about himself rather than third parties talking or writing about him); and the one reference left that's independent and non-local and appears to have been substantively about him is an unverifiable deadlink. No prejudice against recreating or restoring a redirect to the party afterward, but the quality of sourcing here still is not good enough to earn him a standalone BLP just for being a minor candidate who has no actual chance of winning the presidency. Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Chris Keniston
- Chris Keniston ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Article that was deleted earlier this year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Keniston, then recreated as a redirect to his party, but was then revived as a standalone WP:BLP in August (but is different enough this time that G4 speedy is not suitable.) The subject is still a minor party candidate for president, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, but the sourcing still isn't appreciably stronger than it was the first time: of the eight sources being cited here, two are primary ones (his own campaign website and a press release from the party); three are glancing namechecks of his existence in "all of your third party options" overview articles rather than substantive coverage about him; one is a "local man runs for president" article in local media serving the town where he lives; one is a Q&A-style interview with him (which is not a class of sourcing that can assist GNG, as it represents the subject talking about himself rather than third parties talking or writing about him); and the one reference left that's independent and non-local and appears to have been substantively about him is an unverifiable deadlink. No prejudice against recreating or restoring a redirect to the party afterward, but the quality of sourcing here still is not good enough to earn him a standalone BLP just for being a minor candidate who has no actual chance of winning the presidency. Bearcat ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.