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 and redirect to 2006 United States Senate election in Utah. bd2412 T 02:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Looking at the sourcing the only sourcing that is indepdent and reliable is connected with his run for US senate. The problem is we have decided that not all candidates for public office are default notable, but the coverage he got is just at the level any candidate can expect. The last discussion 14 years ago was clearly misguided, it included such gems of early Wikipedia thought as a keep vote that essentially boiled down to "keep because Ilike the fact that this candidate set his campaign website up as a .org website and not a .com website". I am less than convinced that a website that aims to get you put in a position where you get oaid should be anything other than .com, but I clearly do not think either way should influence inclusion in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, a well written page but the subject has very small claims to noteworthiness. Delete supported. Gumsaint ( talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Our notability standards for politicians have evolved significantly since 2005, so the first discussion is not determinative in and of itself. At that time, there was still some support for the idea that non-winning candidates for office should be considered notable enough for articles, though that's been much more definitively quashed in the intervening 14 years — now, the standards that a non-winning candidate for political office would have to pass are that either (a) he can be shown to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons, independent of the candidacy, that would have gotten him an article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) he can be shown to have received so much more coverage than most other candidates also got that he has a credible claim to being special. So he might get over our notability standards for businesspeople if somebody could reference his work as CEO of an internet provider much better than this, but simply saying that he was CEO of an internet provider without sourcing the claim at all doesn't get him past condition A — and there's definitely no evidence of condition B on the table here at all. Bearcat ( talk) 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just added a reference to the front page Salt Lake Tribune profile of him as the XMission CEO in 2004. There are dozens of hits in newspaper databases pre-politics (mid-90s to early 00s), basically because when any paper in Utah needed a quote or example in internet-related coverage they would call up the local internet company CEO. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Delete as a non-notable businessman and failed political candidate that only garnered such coverage as candidates might expect. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2006 United States Senate election in Utah. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:36, 10 February 2019 (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.