Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 14:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 0.2% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable Soltak 18:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete less than non-notableAllegrorondo 20:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind. Gaius Cornelius 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Katz and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. Katz has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. PedanticallySpeaking 14:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. -R. fiend 16:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- [s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. Aerion//talk 04:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge for reasons given at VfD/Peter Fossett. --JamesB3 02:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with PedanticallySpeaking.
Academic Challenger 06:06, 16 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.