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.
Failed U.S. Senate Nominee, only reliable sources are about controversies. No reason to keep since he's never held office / Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:N. Unsure about
WP:GNG since there is coverage, that's the main discussion here.
Redditaddict69 13:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, nothing remarkable or notable, per GNG. Trivial.
Kierzek (
talk) 18:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect and Merge - standard failure under
WP:NPOL. While his statements about his opposition might have caused one-off flashes they both lacked any form of lasting coverage and not particularly outside the standard US political coverage during an election bid. Therefore neither NPOL or GNG satisfied. As he was only the actual candidate in one election, I believe it is standard form to redirect appropriately, here
United States Senate election in Iowa, 2008Nosebagbear (
talk) 14:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Nosebagbear: Would you support a merging of the controversies over to that page?
Redditaddict69 20:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
It isn't critical, but it could be beneficial to merge the actual controversy details to the same location,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 23:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable politician per
WP:NPOL. Nor does service on a warship make you notable under
WP:SOLDIER.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable failed political candidate. We have decided that such individuals are not notable for being major party candidates alone.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator Comment: I support a Redirect and/or Merge of the controversies over to the 2008 election.Redditaddict69 02:51, 30 August 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.
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.
Failed U.S. Senate Nominee, only reliable sources are about controversies. No reason to keep since he's never held office / Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:N. Unsure about
WP:GNG since there is coverage, that's the main discussion here.
Redditaddict69 13:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, nothing remarkable or notable, per GNG. Trivial.
Kierzek (
talk) 18:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect and Merge - standard failure under
WP:NPOL. While his statements about his opposition might have caused one-off flashes they both lacked any form of lasting coverage and not particularly outside the standard US political coverage during an election bid. Therefore neither NPOL or GNG satisfied. As he was only the actual candidate in one election, I believe it is standard form to redirect appropriately, here
United States Senate election in Iowa, 2008Nosebagbear (
talk) 14:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Nosebagbear: Would you support a merging of the controversies over to that page?
Redditaddict69 20:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
It isn't critical, but it could be beneficial to merge the actual controversy details to the same location,
Nosebagbear (
talk) 23:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable politician per
WP:NPOL. Nor does service on a warship make you notable under
WP:SOLDIER.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable failed political candidate. We have decided that such individuals are not notable for being major party candidates alone.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator Comment: I support a Redirect and/or Merge of the controversies over to the 2008 election.Redditaddict69 02:51, 30 August 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.