Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Knight

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Knight[edit]

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

Based on sources presented as well as those available through independent research, this individual does not appear to meet the basic criteria of WP:BIO. Rinkle gorge (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very few goolge-news hits. He ran in a senate primary - and lost. That's about it.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he would already have qualified for an article for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the general election, thereby becoming an actual holder of office and not just a candidate for one, to earn a Wikipedia article on the basis of his participation in an election per se. But this doesn't show any evidence of preexisting notability — there isn't even any content here at all about anything he did between graduating high school and running in a primary, let alone any evidence that he would have earned a Wikipedia article for any of whatever that was. (Also determinative is the conflict between "he lives with his wife" in the body text and "spouse = single" in the infobox — not that marital status constitutes evidence of notability or lack thereof per se, but lack of notability is demonstrated by the lack of ability to reliably source which of those two statements is correct and which is wrong.) Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2017 (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.