Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. Mitchell

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:46, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

[edit] Robert W. Mitchell

Even less notable than Bryan R. Holloway (he lost the election against him). Not noteworthy. Barfooz (talk) 03:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No elected office. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be mentioned in the Bryan R. Holloway article, but isn't notable otherwise. --Unfocused 04:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; losing candidates for national legislatures are encyclopedic, as are winning state reps, but the union of the two sets is the line for me. Meelar (talk) 05:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Having worked on the United Kingdom General Election results recently, I disagree. There are an awful lot of losing candidates for national legislatures, I suspect more than you think. See some of the candidates listed in Newbury (UK Parliament constituency), for example. Would you really have an encyclopaedia article on someone whose sole claim to fame would be that 49 people (out of 57,399) voted for them in 1993? If the only thing (apart from raw genealogy data) that can be said of someone is that they ran for national-level political office and lost, that doesn't warrant an encyclopaedia biography article — unless, of course, they lost repeatedly in a deliberate and spectacular fashion, and gained notoriety for exactly that. This person ran for state-level office and lost, of course. Delete. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  • Should have qualified that, my mistake--major party candidates are notable. Obviously, some college student running under the Pimpz 'n Thugz Party is not. Meelar (talk) 19:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. And overuse of boldness. --Etacar11 21:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that simply losing an election does not establish notability. Indeed, I've argued as much here and here. Alas, I was shot down both times. But this time poor Mr. Mitchell seems to be destined for deletion! The only difference I can see is that he ran for office in the U.S. and the other guys ran for office in Canada and the U.K. Could it be that unsuccessful U.S. politicians are less notable than unsuccessful politicians in other countries? ----Isaac R 02:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There's way too many failed politicians in America lol. It's too big.
• Delete - Definately non-notable. I've added his name to Bryan R. Holloway in case anyone wanted to know. Celestianpower 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Joolz 01:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.