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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

John Waltz (  | 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. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and source that he passed a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then the candidacy itself does not get him in the door. But the only other thing here, that he was founder and executive director of a shortlived advocacy organization, is sourced only to a single deadlinked article on a website -- and judging by that source's URL, Waltz wasn't the subject of the piece, but merely had his existence namechecked in an article whose primary subject was somebody else. This simply is not enough to show that a non-winning candidate has preexisting encylopedic notability for other things. Bearcat ( talk) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete candidates for US house need extremely good sourcing to count as notable, such is not present here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete concur with nom. Fails WP:Politician as he merely ran for Congress. MB 00:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (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.