Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobias Schlingensiepen

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Schlingensiepen[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but rather must be shown and sourced to have already passed a notability criterion for some other reason before becoming candidates -- but nothing here shows or sources that at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At first I thought this was one to cut, but as I clicked past the first couple of pages of a Google News search, I started to find a significant amount of regional and some national coverage on his campaign and events leading up to it. The Wall Street Journal article that I added was what first caught my eye. I believe that there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and even build a pretty darned good article on this subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know which Google you were searching, because on my Google he gets just two pages of purely local campaign coverage and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, and there isn't even a third page of results to click past the second page to. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy--it's the second time this has happened. I'm unable to repeat the search. Last night I clicked on the "news" link above and it gave me tons of stuff, including a WSJ article that I put in the article. There were more and I intended to return. Now I cannot find them. I'm confident it was the "news" link above and not any of the others. I am baffled.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you searched without quotation marks the first time? If I do that, I do get additional hits where people whose first name is Tobias are sitting alongside distinct people whose last name is Schlingensiepen. (And I should also note that the WSJ reference is not an article about him in the news section of the WSJ, but a campaign-style biography of him in their "database of campaign-style biographies of every candidate in the entire country" section for the 2012 election. So it's just WP:ROUTINE coverage, not WP:GNG coverage.) Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so because it took me to a WSJ article on the subject. But if it can't be repeated, the argument should be disregarded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... the search is working again and yielding more results. I'll stay on keep for now but I won't be offended to be on the losing side of this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His highly distinctive name pretty much guarantees the accuracy of a Google search. Though this person exists and is presumably a very nice guy, he fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. I found no evidence of notability for any other reason. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual does not meet the level of notability required for a politician or an activist. ALPolitico (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete the WSJ article was a listing [1] (extensive, but, still, a listing) the Journal's "Project Election" page; not a "real" article. Rest of the articles I found [2] were local and election related.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google searches reveal no notability outside his minor unelected role in state politics in Kansas AusLondonder (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth was this relisted? The consensus is crystal-clear. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RELISTINGISEVIL I agree (as the sole "supporter" of keep, it's done).--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2016 (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.