- 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. Sandstein 08:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Jason Ravnsborg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Candidate for attorney general in South Dakota. Previously ran for Senator in 2014, but does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN. gobonobo + c 06:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG - sources given in article are far from sufficient, as are sources to be found online. It is possible he will become notable in the future, but he is not at the present time. MartinJones ( talk) 08:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per above. It is virtually unsourced, but even if sourced does not have lasting notability. Kablammo ( talk) 21:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ambivalent. I'm seeing some local news coverage [1] [2]. Notably, I see multiple sources citing an Associated Press profile of him, like [3]. I'm not sure. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 02:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. —
Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 02:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- That AP coverage has just five sentences on the subject. Not exactly in-depth. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 04:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely does not meet WP:SOLDIER. He would have to rise much higher in politics to meet WP:POLITICIAN and fails WP:GNG.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections — if you cannot show and properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable because of the election per se. The fact that you can show a handful of campaign coverage does not assist in building a WP:GNG case, either — every candidate in any election anywhere is always the subject of a handful of campaign coverage, so that falls under WP:ROUTINE and does not bolster notability per se. For added bonus, this is written much more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article — so even if he were notable enough for an article, it still wouldn't get to look like this. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing shown or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 06:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Not currently notable. Pichpich ( talk) 14:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:04, 3 June 2017 (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.