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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Dan Maes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non notable candidate for office. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. All coverage appears to be in the context of the election that he ran in. No WP:LASTING notability is apparent. any important information can be merged to 2010 Colorado gubernatorial election. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I find WP:LASTING crediable here. - Scarpy ( talk) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - failing NPOL. It's not egregious enough to trip any of the attack pages, but I think this page was actually created to be negative towards Dan Maes. Everything has that "slightly negative" sense about it, which wouldn't happen if either a supporter or a neutral writer made it. Were it to remain, it would fail NPOV. Nosebagbear ( talk) 11:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win; rather, to make him eligible for an article, it would be necessary to demonstrate that he was notable for more than just being a losing candidate, such as having already had preexisting notability for other reasons (e.g. as a person who had already been a member of the state legislature or Congress, or a mayor of one of Colorado's major cities, or a notable actor or writer or athlete) — and since every candidate in every election always gets some campaign coverage in that context, such coverage does not automatically grant candidates a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. The election-specific content can be addressed in the election article itself — but there's no evidence that he has the lasting significance as an individual that would be needed to warrant his own standalone WP:BLP as a separate topic from the election as a whole. Bearcat ( talk) 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable candidate for public office. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete There isn't any evidence that he has the WP:LASTING significance as an individual that would be needed to warrant his own standalone. -- SalmanZ ( talk) 22:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete He is a footnote from a campaign. Not even his book "Running Without Cowboy Boots" is getting any press.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Just not notable. Bearian ( talk)

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.