- 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. j⚛e decker talk 00:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ken Larsen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and GNG criteria. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Perennial candidacy does not make a person notable. Reywas92 Talk 22:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Minimally sourced BLP of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for political office, which is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Arguably made sense by the standards of 2005, when it was created — but consensus has changed around such things, and it fails our current standards. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 19:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Failed politician. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
- Delete The fact that this guy seems to have performed best with less than 3% of the vote in a congressional district tells you he is always an extremely minor candidate. I am actually not convinced the personal choice party is even notable enough for an article. That article has 2 sources, one of which is a publication of the party, so only one outside source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I have now nominated the Personal Choice Party article for deletion as well. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:13, 24 July 2014 (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.