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.
Delete - At this point, non-notable politician. Can be re-created in the future, if necessary.Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 00:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Change to:[reply]
Weak keep - per Rklear, below. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c 03:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the founder of TLC Medical Oxygen and Hospital Equipment, Inc. is indeed notable, the information should not be cut down or reduced. Kmusgrave (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable as the candidate in an ongoing election. If he loses the election, that's another story -- but right now, this is a premature attempt at erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My understanding of WP:POLITICIAN for candidates in ongoing elections is to create an article only if they win, or if there's sufficient grounds for notability based on other criteria (coverage related to the election should be on the page for the election itself, WP:ONEVENT). RayAYang (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the same basis as the article for his opponent. Win or lose, since there are only 2 major US parties, their candidates for national office should be considered notable.Given the usual campaign appearances, there will always be sources, though it may take looking at print. Yes, this would be opposed to the guideline--consensus on such things can change, and it can change just as well here as on the guideline page, which can always be adjusted to represent reality. DGG (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While this person does not currently meet WP:POLITICIAN, the election that will determine whether he does is only 20 days away. There is a reasonable chance that this article will qualify three weeks from now, and be recreated without opposition. It doesn't seem to violate WP:NPOV or look like a campaign ad; indeed it should be tagged a a stub. Perhaps this discussion could be deferred until 5 November? Rklear (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2008 (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.