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 redirect to Davis v. Federal Election Commission. T. Canens (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Davis (industrialist)

[edit]

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

I have serious questions about this individuals' notability. There is nothing about his career as an "industrialist" that meets WP:GNG beyond any reasonable doubt. His political career fails WP:POLITICIAN as a frequent losing candidate. His political party isn't notable; the link redirects to a section on this article. He was the subject of a case tried by the SCOTUS, which might make him notable, but I don't think it's enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as there seems to be an adequate number of sources on his current prospects, which make significant note of his previous runs. In the event I am overruled, consider redirecting to Davis v. Federal Election Commission and merging some of the more pertinent biographical information into a section on that page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete based on past outcomes. I am torn on this. A redirect would also be OK. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for his role in Davis v. Federal Election Commission which is the only real claim of notability. MLA (talk) 21:16, 25 February 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) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Largely unreferenced biographical information. Unnotable for his political and professional career. If being the plaintiff in the court case is his sole claim to fame, there's a 1E issue and he should be redirected to that article. Lara 22:39, 3 March 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.