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 keep. Although he is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, he does pass WP:GNG, which is enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Bengur[edit]

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

The article asserts no notability outside of the fact that he has unsuccessfully run for office, therefore he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Note also that this BLP is sourced only to the candidate's website and a business listing. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was at one point treasurer of the MD Dems but all his races were losing; I couldn't even find evidence that he had run for delegate in the most recent race. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE points 9 and 10. I have added easily found sources to the article dating back as far as his service as an aide to the Governor of Maine in 1979. The subject has had political and business coverage outside of his recent campaigns, and passes the GNG. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every single person in my class at High School is more notable than this individual and yet not one of them is listed on Wikipedia (nor care to be). My apologies if that sounds harsh. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Only one source indepent of subject that is really about the subject of the article (and it's a VERY local source). Interviewing him about someone else does not establish notability. Lack of actual public office preclude passing WP:POLITICIAN. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- keep The updates to the article are enough to persuade me to change my vote to a keep. I would like to comment also that tagging an article for rescue during an AfD is not a bad thing. I've seen several AfD's result in a vastly improved article that can then be kept. Kudos to JimMillerJr for the substantial improvement over the past day. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that after two additional delete arguments have been made since being relisted, User:JimMillerJr has now tagged the article for rescue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above is an improper point as we are supposed to discuss edits, not editors. Also, adding a rescue tag is a perfectly legitimate maintenance edit for any article being discussed for deletion, and it's addition to the article has no bearing on this discussion, the comments that may follow, or the value of any other contributions made to either the article or the AfD. A standard delsort statement would have sufficed. This comment demonstrates bad faith. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 01:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am discussing your edit (specifically your tagging the article for rescue only after additional delete arguments were made); I did not make any personal remarks about you as a person. I never said the tagging was improper - only that it was worth noting. Regardless of how the AfD closes the article was tagged for rescue by the only person who argued for keep once two additional delete arguments were made. I would also have made a similar comment if an editor had marked it for speedy deletion in the middle of a discussion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the coverage appears to be either very local or very tangential. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. SnottyWong ^chatter 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes the general notability guidelines, and that's all that matters. The news media certain mentions him and quotes him enough to be considered notable. Click the Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, and glance through the results. Dream Focus 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets our notability requirements. There are a range of reliable sources and some significant claims to notability - the first candidate of Turkish origin to run for Congress in US history. I haven't looked closely at the history, though I note the article has improved since being nominated, and it may be worth those who !voted to delete early on to revisit the article, and to check out the sources in the links at the top of this AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 22:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New material and new citations make this a Keep. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2011 (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.