Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken V. Krawchuk

:{{la|Ken V. Krawchuk}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ken_V._Krawchuk Stats])

:({{Find sources|Ken V. Krawchuk}})

Is a candidate for an office automatically notable, even if he has never held an office? Although this article is long, and has many references, the number of references that meet WP:RS seems small and I'm not convinced this person meets WP:BIO. Remove everything that is not in reliable, nontrivial sources, and the article that remains would say, "Ken Krawchuk was the Libertarian nominee for governor in Pennsylvania. He lost." FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 23. Snotbot  t • c »  16:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Fails WP:POLITICIAN because he never held office, and I can find that nothing that comes even remotely close to satisfying the WP:GNG requirement for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• Keep it, for several reasons. The political resume is sufficient IMO and not just governor. Elected state party chairman of the third largest political party in America, which qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN as a statewide office. Candidate for vice president adds to that. Also an inventor with three US patents, which meets the notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE and/or Wikipedia:NRVE. Noted public speaker who conducted US presidential debates. Appears in Best Documentary, 2008 Sunscreen Film Festival[http://www.hollerbackfilm.com] Re: the WP:GNG requirement, get past the recent novel and YouTube stuff on Google, and there are hundreds of newspaper articles from past races, mostly 2002 and 1998 governor races that meet WP:RS. Lots of reasons to keep it. And I won't mention that Googling only the last name and he comes up as the first person.--User:Tweeger 01:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonambulist (talk • contribs)

::Statewide office for the purposes of WP:POLITICIAN has always been interpreted as being part of a legislature or holding some kind of ministerial role. Being a state party chairman does not fulfil that criteria. Valenciano (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:He appeared in a documentary; was that documentary about him? Can you offer links to the best of the 'hundreds of newspaper articles?' Specifically, articles that are about him, not just articles that mention his name. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per above reasons -T1980 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Very strong delete, actually. We have never accepted someone who tries but fails to get a minor party nomination even for such an important office as Vice-President office as notable for that reason alone, Similarly for candidates nominated and running for offices such as representative to Congress from minor parties--I've advocated this for the 2 major parties in a 2 party system, but I would go beyond this. Similar for the state chairmanship: in the US, I would accept that for the 2 major parties, but not for others. The other writings are trivial. And the argument above that he is the most google-prominent person with the name of Krawchuk is rather ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that such arguments can be made in good faith, but I think in this case it's more of ILIKEHIM. Essentially all mentions of him are just that, mentions. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

: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.