Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aage Nost

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) 05:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aage Nost[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsuccessful candidature fails WP:POLITICIAN; author of a book published by a self-publishing house [1]. No evidence of biographical notability presented or found. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even second place finishers in a congressional race are not notable. Those who finish 4th with less than 2% of the vote are not at all close to notable, and Nost's book does nothing for him either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. MB 03:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article because candidate, in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he qualified for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he must win the election, not just run in it, to become includable on the basis of the election itself. But self-publishing a book does not make him notable either, and primary-sourcing the article entirely to his own website about himself doesn't get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate; otherwise, it's a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nomineeRniterjr (talk) 22:09, 6 September 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.