Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schaller

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Schaller

Schaller was allegedly responsible for raising $8 million for the Thune campaign against Tom Daschle, but a cursory Google shows no notability, and I don't believe this in itself makes Schaller notable. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sure he warrants a mention on Thune's page, but everything else here is nn. -Jcbarr 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andy Saunders' google search was inaccurate. If you google Schaller and Thune, the 2nd posting is from an article which references Schaller's involvement in Thunes historic victory. From the February 2005 edition of Campaigns and Elections Magazine, ""John Schaller has been promoted to vice president of political services at The Lukens Company after five years with the company. John has been a leader in the expansion we've had. This promotion is a testament to the significant contribution he's already made," LTC president Walter Lukens said. In his new position, Schaller manages the 13 people on the political staff, Lukens said. As political director in 2004, Schaller ran the direct mail fundraising for U.S. Sen. John Thune's campaign, which raised more than $8 million in less than eight months." I think this is evidence enough to KEEP Schaller on Wikipedia. -Seinfeld01

- A search on Google for ' "John Schaller" Thune' reveals no hits whatsoever. --Andy Saunders 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, I'm just doing the nominating because I personally do not feel he is notable enough for inclusion on his own. If the rest of the community agrees with me, they will suggest it be deleted. If they think I'm a crazy man for thinking so, they will suggest it be kept. Check out Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. --Andy Saunders 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_still_alive is the relevant policy. -Jcbarr 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You need to check your internet connection. If you google "Schaller Thune" articles from Campaigns & Elections will come up. Shame on you for trying to discredit a notable achievement with symantics. --Seinfeld01 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, it is unfair for "James Barrett" to have any form of nomination ability since his bio clearly states he worked for John Edwards and John Kerry. His bio is a who's who of left wing, liberal viewpoints and his opinion is merely a partisan smear tactic against someone who helped a Republican candidate for office. --Seinfeld01 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. Nice try, though. Also Seinfeld, you should not nominate other wikipedia authors pages for deletion. I have removed this page, where you nominated User:Jcbarr for deletion.--File Éireann 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, for a start, and not happy with bad faith actions by Seinfeld01 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • RFC). Stifle 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without any credible external sources or references, this article is unverifiable. — TheKMan^talk 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Facts are confirmed. See [1] for details. -WIkiCheck 19:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Edit history shows edit made by Seinfeld01 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • RFC). This is the user's 2nd vote. Andy Saunders 15:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Campaigns & Elections magazine is a verifiable source. Keep your partisan wrangling off Wikipedia please. ^talk 10:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User's 3rd vote in this discussion. Andy Saunders 15:45, 2 February 2006 (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.