- 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Horning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable candidate for political office. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete candidate from a minor party that has never been elected. Attempted only state level positions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really not notable, but might be someday since he's making a lot of effort. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Andrew Horning redirects to this article; I suppose it should receive the same fate as this article, whatever that might be? Qqqqqq (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll be deleted once the article is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Horning is still active in politics, and a leader of a political party that regularly gets 10+ percent of the vote in Indiana. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regularly? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, for example United States Senate election in Indiana, 2006. In southern and central Indiana libtertarians hold many positions at the local level. By no means anywhere near a majority, and about every election period, at least some libertrarian will get 10+% in some statewide election, and occasionally in federal elections, like in the example. I read somewhere that Libertarian party in Indiana is strong than in any other state. They are acutally recognized by state laws as on the one of the state's three major parties, and have their own section in the state produced election handbooks. State laws were also modified to permit explicity to allow the Libertarian party to nominate candidates in convention, whereas previously law required them to hold a primary. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the party is notable—although it has only done particularly well for federal or statewide offices when one of the major parties hasn't fielded a candidate—but I don't believe that this proves that the individual in question is also notable. What has he done other than pay filing fees and run unsuccessfully for multiple offices? There would be dozens of Indiana Libertarians who have done the same thing. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but personally I think anyone who runs for governor of Indiana as Libertarian party candidate is worthy of an article. Just my own opinion. If consensus is to delete, lets at least redirect the article to Indiana gubernatorial election, 2008. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, would favor that redirect. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't oppose a redirect/merge, but I do think Horning is notable. Although he recieved few votes, he did participate in the gubernatorial debates. Reywas92Talk 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, would favor that redirect. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but personally I think anyone who runs for governor of Indiana as Libertarian party candidate is worthy of an article. Just my own opinion. If consensus is to delete, lets at least redirect the article to Indiana gubernatorial election, 2008. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the party is notable—although it has only done particularly well for federal or statewide offices when one of the major parties hasn't fielded a candidate—but I don't believe that this proves that the individual in question is also notable. What has he done other than pay filing fees and run unsuccessfully for multiple offices? There would be dozens of Indiana Libertarians who have done the same thing. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, for example United States Senate election in Indiana, 2006. In southern and central Indiana libtertarians hold many positions at the local level. By no means anywhere near a majority, and about every election period, at least some libertrarian will get 10+% in some statewide election, and occasionally in federal elections, like in the example. I read somewhere that Libertarian party in Indiana is strong than in any other state. They are acutally recognized by state laws as on the one of the state's three major parties, and have their own section in the state produced election handbooks. State laws were also modified to permit explicity to allow the Libertarian party to nominate candidates in convention, whereas previously law required them to hold a primary. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regularly? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He has been able to garner a substantial number of votes on many occasions; moreover, he nearly won an election. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Nearly won? The best he did was 43% of the vote—hardly close. There are tens of thousands of failed political candidates in the United States alone. Achieving some certain percentage of the vote doesn't make them notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some more research, and I'm now leaning weak delete. He fails the first criterion of WP:POLITICIAN; for the second and third criteria, he has been covered in news sources, but not significantly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nearly won? The best he did was 43% of the vote—hardly close. There are tens of thousands of failed political candidates in the United States alone. Achieving some certain percentage of the vote doesn't make them notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (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.