Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan King

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 delete. John Reaves (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan King

Dan King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The guy isn't even remotely notable, and the article fails to cite sources. Delete GreenJoe 19:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - all the content, besides the un-cited previous political candidacies, is non-notable. What information is notable, just the minimal information on the previous political runs, isn't really enough to justify the existence of one article. This article should be deleted and inline mentions added to the yearly election articles about his previous political candidacies. Luke! 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete but if there are external sources, I would change that to Keep. A perennial political outsider will be N if noticed by the media, just like anything else. DGG 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- a perennial candidate, activist in local causes. This is well-written, and properly linked and categorised. If properly cited, it should be kept. there are far less notable people who have articles in Wikipedia, including practically every minor character in Star Wars, Star Trek and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Mr. King, in addition to running for political office all over the place, at least is real. Ground Zero | t 12:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This individuals local causes are way too local to be of encyclopedic value; but, his public office runs are notable and I have recommended some course of action above to include this. Examples of non-notability and high subjectiveness without proper referencing within the article include "...tenant rep...involved in local causes for immigrants...expert...he has never made a living in this field...very active and prominent..." Well-written, and proper categorization and linkage are not part of the criteria used for judging inclusion, rather the notability guidelines are. There could be the most un-notable article that has characteristics of all three of those yet it does not satisfy notability to allow for inclusion. And just because other articles exist does not justify that this article should be kept. Each article is judged on its own merits. Luke! 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - 104, 000 gtest results - none of the first 10 are this particular Dan King. Violates WP:BIO I believe, NN. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable per Vanderdecken, google has nothing much about him.--Paloma Walker 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I can only admire his persistence in repeated electoral campaigns against all reasonable odds. Some possibly notable work is referred to in the article, such as "A briefing paper coauthored by King on GAAP and ISO 19011" If there were adequate references his work might be shown to be notable, but this article does not make there case. DGG 07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. I agree with Luckyluke that this article was clearly not written in an objective manner, and as such I am skeptical of how 'prominent' the fellow is claimed to be. Even taking all claims at face value, however, I don't see notability. -Joshuapaquin 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per all above, non-notable. Goodnightmush 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - The problem with your perennial candidates this that often their quixotic campaigns are a source of notability, even though they are destined to be failures (from an electoral point of view). But this article makes no claims to notabiility as a perennial 'crackpot' candidate if you will. It does make a lot of grandiose claims with nothing to back it up. "He is an expert in Canada's tax system", "He is also an expert in emissions trading especially for non-point sources, and has worked on land trust and fundraising problems related to forest preservation and preventing deforestation, though he has never made a living in this field, his advice is widely sought by other Greens on ecology-related accounting matters." What? A re-write and some independent sourcing could help. Montco 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I never heard of the guy, but perenial cadidates are a useful part of democracy and by that action alone he is probaly notable enough- ie someone is likly to do a search to see "who is this guy" he has a way to go to match John Turmel by the looks of itcmacd 14:04, 10 April 2007 (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.