Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Kissling

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 The only assertion of notability is that failed campaign, which as pointed out does not meet WP:BIO. Sourced information could certainly be added to articles on the relevent eletions, were someone so inclined. Pastordavid (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Kissling

Albert Kissling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested speedy. Failed political candidates are not inherently notable; no other assertion of notability is present. Powers ^T 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• If it was for dog catcher, I'd agree, but not for Congress. Does it help that he is currently running again for the same seat in 2008? -Kika chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kika chuck (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep: Failed candidates are also not inherently non-notable. 30 seconds spent with Google News' archive search turns up at least two dozen press mentions. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - failed candidates might get press coverage during the campaign, but I don't think (imho) this establishes individual notability. Could be merged into an article about the campaign possibly. Avruch^Talk 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• But this particular person also has coverage now due to his 2008 run [http://news.google.com/news?q=Al+Kissling&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn - Kika chuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kika chuck (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability." Powers ^T 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• But that page also says that it may be allowable if he/she is a current candidate for office —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kika chuck (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The text of that comment is: "Note, however, that some dissent may be expressed if the election campaign in question is currently underway — however, dissent has also been engineered on occasion by the candidate's own campaign office, so monitor this for potential sockpuppetry." So, it is not automatic that a current candidate is sufficiently notable. — ERcheck (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Kika. Orphic (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or include in an article about the current election: Kissling (D) garnered 40 percent of the vote in the last election against the incumbent Steve Pearce (R) . Pearce is now running for the Senate. If this particular election does not have enough interest for an article, then delete. (Note that the current Senate election in NM does have an article.) — ERcheck (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - being a failed candidate provides no notability and there is no other assertion of notability. This time round he is not yet on the ballot. Totally lacks any secondary sources so fails WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2007 (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.