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.
Perennial candidate for political office who never won anything, no substantive coverage (coverage in reliable sources consists of gentle mockery and mentions of frivolous lawsuits - the rest is his website, blogs and similar stuff). Google Hits are not evidence of notability, anyone can get them for running on a ticket with an Elvis impersonator.
Hekerui (
talk)
20:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Uh, "If you've voted in Minnesota before, you've seen Savior's name. He's sought statewide offices for nearly two decades." That's a claim of notability right there.
173.165.239.237 (
talk)
00:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Of course, that is a claim of notability, but not a demonstration of notability. We have established consensus about what notability consists of for
politicians. Can you offer examples of in-depth coverage (not passing mentions) in reliable sources, other than "gentle mockery" as Hekerui said, of his many runs for office? This coverage doesn't rise above human interest stories, or slow day news fillers, in my opinion.
Cullen328 (
talk)
01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Never heard of him before and he is running for president apparently. It seems like theres enough sources on him. I dont see any reason to delete him since a decent article has been put together. It just needs some cleanup.--
Metallurgist (
talk)
15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Why not? There was no consensus, the previous discussion had some arguments (like Google Hits) I'd want reexamined, and we can't reasonably expect notable campaign developments from this candidate, rendering a longer waiting period moot.
Hekerui (
talk)
08:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete This guy is very unnotable.
WP:POLITICIAN says that just because a person was a nominee, it doesn't mean they should have an article if tey don't win. Savior has done this multiple times and never come close. Little Johnny over here might run for governor of New York three times. Does that mean he should have an article? Of course not IF NOONE KNOWS WHO HE IS outside of Minnesota.
75.150.67.34 (
talk)
18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the reasons for proposed deletion: "A minor and unsuccessful candidate for minor public office with no other evidence of notability. Previously deleted by prod" Mr. Savior has not run for "minor public office". Instead, he has only run for major public office (ranging from US Congress to US President). Though he never won any major office, he received more votes in the 2008 Democratic NH primary than other candidates who do have long standing Wikipedia articles.
Mill1627 (
talk)
21:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree with Mill627. For observers of Minnesota politics, Ole Savior is a notable figure. He is a recurrent candidate for statewide office. Every election cycle state media outlets give mention to his candidacy, and a wikipedia page with an objective description of the man would be helpful to the electorate. Also, his name is Ole Savior.
Welle (
talk)
19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I concur with Mill1627 and Ahwelle. Mr. Savior was included in a number of the debates last spring featuring all of the candidates attempting to garner the DFL endorsement. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maxpage (
talk •
contribs)
22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Should those really apply? Those were comments from nearly a year ago that is not based on the current article. If they want to vote yes or no, they should come here and do it, right?
SOXROX (
talk)
13:55, 7 May 2011 (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.