Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Drown

:{{la|Larry Drown}} ([{{fullurl:Larry Drown|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Drown}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Fails WP:BIO. I'm in favor of including major-party nominees for U.S. Senate who lose the general election. But losing a primary is different. In general, candidates who lose primaries are not inherently notable. Drown falls under that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Although I don't think it makes a difference, Drown was a major party nominee for Vermont's lone seat in the House of Representatives in 2004. However, I'm not in favor of inherent notability for persons who have lost a legislative election. Inherent notability is granted for anyone who has served in any nation's legislature, whether its the U.S. House or Senate, or "Supreme People's Assembly" that rubber-stamps the wishes of Kim Jong-Il. I don't see how we can confer the same status on persons who didn't win the right to serve, since it would involve a judgment call about whether the loser of an American election is more entitled than the loser of, say, an election in Costa Rica. Mandsford (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• (Weak) Delete - This chap doesn't appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN although a bordeline case might be made for him under section 2. Crafty (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Political gadfly. Definitely nn.Student7 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2009 (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.