Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Coggeshell III

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Coggeshell III

Glenn does not fit the profile of a person whose biography belongs on the Wikipedia. Minor candidate that did not win his 2004 primary does not belong on the Wikipedia. Velvetsmog 02:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn-bio. So tagged. Friday (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I removed the speedy tag. The criteria, (CSD A7) says "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles." Unless you can point to a place where it says that being a political candidate is specifically not to be considered an "assertion of that person's importance or significance", the article does make such a claim, and therefore cannot be speedied under A7. Nevertheless, I agree that it is nn, and should be deleted. Just not speedied, at least AFAIK. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement of one's job is specifically mentioned as not being an assertion of notability. Obviously, some jobs (head of state of a country, for example) are exceptions. Trying and failing to get a job can't in my book be considered an assertion of notability either then. However, since the speedy tag was removed, there's obviously disgreement, so it looks like it'll be dragged through Afd. I personally still see no reason not to speedy this, but Afd is for when there's disagreement, so here we are. I noticed there's been some backlog in Afd lately so I'm looking for ways to reduce the number of articles that have to go thru it. Thanks for your response. Friday (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Losing a U.S. primary election is not a claim to notability. Quale 00:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Contesting a major party primary is an assertion of notability per speedy category as nearly 10,000 people voted for him in a previous race for State Senator see [1]. Being a losing candidate is not notable enough unless the candidate has other claims to notability so delete. Capitalistroadster 07:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominees for elected office are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 10:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he lost the primary and thus did not get his party's nomination. Holding a sufficiently high office may lend one notability, but around here we elect very minor things like sheriffs and coroners. Even winning an elected office doesn't always make one notable, so I don't see how failing to win could automatically lend notability. Friday (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A candidate to be a candidate for office is not notable. What led up to this election may make him notable, but I doubt it would cross my personal lines. I suspect it may cross AfD's, though. --Prosfilaes 02:06, 22 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.