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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Balukoff[edit]

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

Failed candidate. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than failed candidate is a current trustee for one of the biggest school districts in the state and is a IDDP activist and serves in multiple roles in the party.IdahoSolo (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a Democratic Party activist! He backed Mitt Romney for President! AusLondonder (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as defeated candidate for office. No other credible claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Fails NPOL, but there is some external coverage. An expert on the subject might be able to bring this up to snuff, but it's not enough as it is right now. South Nashua (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Balukoff is not notable. Being a member of a school district board where the current enrollment is 26,000 (it seems to have been lower when Balukoff was on the board) is not a sign of notability. Some of the other things in this article seem aimed at boosting the subject's notability without actually drawing on the sources. The claim that Balukoff has held various LDS "leadership positions" is not backed by one of the two sources linked. That source only says that he has a temple recomend, although the author of the article did not know LDS terminology enough to use the right term. While due to the nature of the LDS Church I highly suspect that Balukoff has held "leadership postions" I doubt they have even risen to the level of being one of the 30,000 or so leaders worldwide of congregations with average attendance of maybe 200 (it varies by congregation, some are very small, but very few over 300 and virtually none with over 400 attendance), who serve for an average of maybe 5 years. The 44 minute long pod-cast produced by a highly partisan group might have given more insight, but it does not count as a reliable source. Being a major party nominee for governor is not enough to make one notable, and nothing else about Balukoff is even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His press coverage as a losing candidate for Governor of Idaho is not a sign of notability per site rules; it's possible he could be notable through his business career or through a position in the Democratic Party, but the article does not show this right now. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Idaho gubernatorial election, 2014. Support recreation if he is successful in future runs. MB298 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for statewide office are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates per se — at the gubernatorial level it's certainly possible that someone will have enough preexisting notability to have already earned an article for that other reason anyway, but the fact of being a candidate doesn't clinch inclusion all by itself in the absence of properly sourced evidence of preexisting notability. School board trustees do not get Wikipedia articles just for being school board trustees either, so that doesn't show any preexisting notability in and of itself. And when it comes to the sourcing, I see far too many primary sources and podcasts, and not even close to enough reliable, independent source coverage about him, to stack a WP:GNG claim on. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (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.