Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kratovil

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 merge into MD-1#2008. Article does not substantiate stand-alone notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Kratovil

Frank Kratovil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article fails notability criteria for politicians, the subject is an unelected candidate for a political office, no indication of notability for anything else. The article is probably just a tool used to help the campaign in which case it also fails WP:NOT. See similar debate. SWik78 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep (edit: could also live with merge as a second choice) he appears to have built up a pretty solid body of coverage by reliable sources independent of him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, although the creator has tried hard to make the subject appear so. Dreamspy (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Through such nefarious tactics as citing coverage by reliable third party sources? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I see your point, but the sources cited do not show notability in any way, only that he has had a lacklustre political career to date. Dreamspy (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, unsuccessful political candidate. Some local press coverage, but nothing to indicate substantial, non-local notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep, Major party candidate for US House who has won primary.Naraht (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I read Mr. Bulten's entry here and am changing my vote to Merge and redirect. Whoever wins the MD-1 2008 election gets a Wikipedia page just like any other member of the US Congress.Naraht (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; as per Lankiveil. Local newspapers have a lot of stuff that is just sub-encyclopedic. I don't see the solid body of coverage by reliable sources; the article cites two articles in local newspapers, an opinion page in a local newspaper, and PolitickerMD.com, which I'm guessing is the equivalent of a local newspaper. Not one of the reliable sources mention anything besides the current election; they don't discuss the man or anything of a biographical nature.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect straightforwardly into a new section: MD-1#2008. Trim to two paragraphs and add two paragraphs from the challenger (and anything else useful). Then the community can sort it out there. Use my work at TX-14 for ideas. I will keep making this suggestion every time I see such a case, in the hopes that as 2008 progresses folks will realize the validity of putting the highlights of current-campaign material into the district pages. It neatly resolves both sides of the argument. The sources are reliable, they mention basically only the election, the election is a proper topic for the district page, so merge trumps deletion, QED. If notability fails at the MD-1 article, the coverage can calmly dwindle to zero, just as it did for andymann2008.com, who used to be in TX-14 and Ron Paul article until his campaign failed to materialize. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per John J. Bulten's excellent argument. The sources are primarily about the election. Dimitrii (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Increasingly important article with more potential sources via Google News. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep obviously this article passes the standards of being considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 26 March 2008
• Merge and redirect, also per John J. Bulten's excellent argument. TerriersFan (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (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.