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.
Candidate in a congressional election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy96 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Most politicians running for congressional office have a wikipedia page, however according to the policy WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". That sentence would constitute deletion, but if some reliable sources can be found then there is no harm in keeping it per WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article author). The candidacy has garnered significant coverage in reliable sources, which is our only standard. There was a good story in The State yesterday, which I've added to the article. There have been others in the last few weeks. Chick Bowen 03:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the generic WP:N standards for substantial independent coverage. WP:POLITICIAN is supposed to augment WP:N, not overrule WP:N (and says this explicitly). WilyD 10:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like the soucres now check out with WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He won the Democratic primary. That's called an election. I really don't understand why anyone would want to pour gasoline on a fire. The general election is November 4, 2008. Anyone with any sense would wait until after that to suggest deletions. These partisan attacks on Democratic candidates aren't helpful to Wikipedia's reputation. And no, I am not going to sink to your level and start listing all the Republican candidates for deletion, as I am a responsible adult. I'm appalled you're an Administrator. Flatterworld (talk)
Though I hope this article is kept, I don't think there's any reason to impugn Blueboy's motives--he has shown no political bias (on the other hand, you might accuse me of bias, since I wrote it because I admire Miller, though I don't live in his district). I also think there are many primary-winners who shouldn't have articles (if they haven't gotten significant press coverage). In this case, there is significant coverage, so there should be an article. Chick Bowen 03:41, 27 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.