Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Katz (Philadelphia)

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 keep; per discussion below, meets "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" criterion of WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Katz (Philadelphia)

Sam Katz (Philadelphia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable subject: Candidate for local and state-level political positions... never successfully being elected. Sancho 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Perennial candidates aren't notable...unless you're Pat Paulsen.--Ispy1981 21:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral as an editor on this article, I will not take a position. I will say that Ispy1981's Pat Paulsen comment is a bit disingenuous. While having two rather low budget attempts at public office in 1991 and 1994, Katz made two serious runs at mayor and came within a percentage point of being the first GOP mayor since 1951, no small feat in Philadelphia. While the race generated very significant coverage locally, possibly even some nationally, his 15 minutes of fame may be up in the eyes of some. And that would certainly be a legitimate argument. I make that argument often enough myself in AFD discussions on failed candidates. On the off-chance Katz were to run again in four or eight years, the article could certainly be brought back from the dead.Montco 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, normally I would agree on this on with Ispy1981, but in this case I say keep, he is a perinial canidate for a large metropolitan city and I liked Montco's resoning. Callelinea 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A local politician who is getting continuing press coverage. (example in article) The WP:BIO test of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" does not require actually winning an election, just the significant press coverage, which this article demonstrates. GRBerry 17:43, 18 July 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.