Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Proft (2nd Nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Proft

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has existed in the current form more or less since the primary 4 years ago. He is a candidate that finished in last place in single digits in primary and doesn't seem to have had any noteworthy activity before or since. Merely running for office doesn't make one noteworthy and most of the current article is positions he took in primary and there doesn't appear to be much more notable material to add. Recommend delete or at least a merge to 2010 election page.C UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may run again for Governor in 2014 and there is significant coverage of this, for example here and here. The article does need to be tidied up a little but with the existing coverage, the recent material to add and other information about him from here, for example, he meets WP:POLITICIAN. As was noted the last time this article was nominated for deletion, simply coming last in a primary and not having many recent edits is not reason enough to delete an article. Tiller54 (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The net effect of this is promotional,and obviously intended to be so. DGG ( talk ) 14:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think this might be a borderline WP:GNG pass.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more independent coverage, but that could be found with minimal digging on Google News, much revolves around his commentary and talk show. Meets GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2013 (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.