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. Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Perennial political candidate with little success or impact even at the local level. He gets some mentions in the press, but not the depth that we would expect for a living person. This article was likely created to help raise his profile for the 2018 PA governors race that he is also exceedingly likely to lose. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The court's previously struck down a rule that made third parties by financial penalties, which has been a big factor in limiting 3rd parties there - since it means that they get bullied into withdrawing ( http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/court-rules-minor-political-parties-may-fight-law-that-makes-them-pay-legal-costs-of-major-party-lawsuits-against-them-140715?news=853686, http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-ballot-access-lawsuit-20160701-story.html). 41% of national voters think "Government" is the problem, and there's a distrust of both the Democrats and Republicans. Only 32% of voters say Trump is doing a good or excellent job, and 52% believe the state is off track, and only 38% of voters say that Gov Wolf is doing a good job ( https://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/56099588469302664-f-m-poll-release-february-2017.pdf). Edward Clifford who ran for US Senate in the 2016 PA election got almost 4% of the vote ( https://ballotpedia.org/Edward_Clifford_III). Given that turnouts tend to be only about 35%, Krawchuk could be able to win if he gets about 15% of the registered voters to vote - so it would be mostly about turnout. Especially now since he won't be liable to financial penalties - and the rise of social media compared to previous elections may help as well since many voters are turning against the two big parties. Swil999 ( talk) 16:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. There appears to be recent consensus to keep these types of candidates as redirects. He obviously doesn't meet WP:NPOL and I see no other claim of independent notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete fails GNG. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 07:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ TonyBallioni:

Disclosure: I am the acting manager for Ken Krawchuk's campaign for Pennsylvania Governor

Ken Krawchuk had a record setting number of votes for all Pennsylvania Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidates in his 2002 campaign. ( https://www.lppa.org/libpenn/libpenn_2003_winter.pdf) During this campaign he appeared in 2 nationally televised debates. ( https://www.c-span.org/video/?172744-1/pennsylvania-gubernatorial-debate)

Ken Krawchuk also received the Libertarian nomination for Pennsylvania Governor in 2014. ( http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/02/ken-krawchuk-wins-libertarian-gubernatorial-nomination-in-pennsylvania/) ( http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/5639231-74/krawchuk-party-signatures)

Ken Krawchuk has been a member of Toastmasters International since 1997, achieving his Distinguished Toastmaster award in 2006. In 2008 he also received the District's prestigious John E. Foster DTM Achievement Award for his service to Toastmasters. ( http://tmdistrict38.org/PDF/District%2038_%20Sept%202014%20Newsletter.pdf) Toastmasters International is a global organization with over 345,000 members. ( https://www.toastmasters.org/leadership-central/statistics-and-data-hub) Ken has consistently won awards and contests for his speeches. ( http://www.tmdistrict38.org/Famehall/Contest-TT.xls)

Ken Krawchuk has been a computer programer since 1970 and holds 3 U.S. patents in that field.U.S. Patent numbers (5,418,942), (5,564,119), and (5,564,119) titled “ System and Method for Managing and Storing Information” ( https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/u-s-patent-and-trademark-office)

( https://www.google.com/patents/US5564119?dq=5,564,119&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCxIra5MjUAhUKWD4KHYHDC7AQ6AEIJDAA) ( https://www.google.com/patents/US5960437?dq=5,418,942&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifxPHX5cjUAhVKOj4KHd6qD24Q6AEITjAG#forward-citations) These patents have been referenced over 150 times.

Marcbozz ( talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Not sure why you're putting article content in the AfD, but OK. We did read the article itself. The foregoing does not show the subject meeting the WP:GNG. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 02:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se; if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that they were already eligible for one independently of being a candidate, then they have to win the election, not just have their name on the ballot, to get a Wikipedia article out of it. But nothing claimed here (either in the article or in his campaign manager's spiel above) demonstrates preexisting notability, and almost exactly none of the sources being shown (either in the article or in his campaign manager's spiel above) constitute reliable source coverage about him in media. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for unelected candidates' campaign brochures — we keep articles about holders of notable political offices, not non-winning candidates for them. (And just for the record, don't even try to respond to that statement with the "but Hillary Clinton lost and she still has an article" argument, the way some people do; she may have lost the presidential race, but she did hold notable offices prior to running for president and already had an article on those grounds before she had even entered a presidential primary, so she's not a comparable situation.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I would also suspect she (for want of some other words that would cause problems) met the GNG before holding political office. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2017 (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.