Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Horne

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 Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Horne[edit]

I don't believe Mr. Horne meets WP:BIO, or has any realistic likelihood of doing so soon. He has run in two primaries for major offices, the House and Senate, but lost one and dropped out of the other primary early. Other than that, he gave a radio address... I don't really see much else towards notability here. WP:BIO says politicians who haven't held statewide office can be notable if they are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". It would be a real stretch to say Horne is a "Major local political figure" - he's never even held a city council post. I am not just out to get Mr. Horne, I worked on this article while he was still in the senate race. Rividian (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what form did this "draft Horne" movement take? Was it genuinely independent of him? If he was notable enough to attract an actual draft movement (as opposed to one of these self-promoting faux draft movements), that's a positive sign for notability, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure who was responsible for the "draft Horne" thing, but at least in Kentucky politics, we see several of these things every year for some reason. This one got no media coverage that I can find, so it doesn't seem very notable. --Rividian (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Horne is notable enough for an article as anyone who is chosen to deliver a national weekly radio address in response to the President's address has to be noteworthy. That Democrats considered him for this role means he is not obscure. Also notable is that he ran in two races for federal offices, the one for the Senate being very high profile, as the general election opponent is the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be ones that are expansive; some are indeed small subjects. Horne's accomplishments in the political realm may be minor, but they are also notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they're not notable as defined by WP:BIO... I thought that was pretty clear. There are 8 democrats running in the senate primary this year (7 now that Horne dropped out), other than Horne, the only one with an article is Lunsford, who I believe is notable even if he never ran in an election. Sure Horne is well-liked around Louisville Democrats in a quixotic kind of way, but he really hasn't accomplished anything that goes towards what Wikipedia defines as notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rividian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Careful - while running for a major party's nomination doesn't make you automatically notable, it also doesn't automatically make you non-notable. It is possible to be notable solely on the basis of one such run (not that that's what's happening here), as long as this run garnered sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Giving a nationally heard speech in response to the President's speech alone makes Horne notable. You cannot discount my vote because the subject doesn't strictly follow WP:BIO in your opinion. I'm also not a Democrat, so I'm not a blind follower of Mr. Horne. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if you took this as something personal... I just hope you can understand my POV, even if you don't agree with it. Horne has never been elected to an office, or even won a primary... I don't see that as a very notable political career, and I'm just not convinced that giving a radio address once is enough notability for an article, especially considering the article shows no evidence the radio address was widely reported on by the media... it merely links to a transcript. However, if this radio address is enough for the community to say he is notable, so be it. --[[User talk:Rividian|Rividian]] (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the publicity he has received during his first campaign made him significantly notable. He also received a decent amount of publicity during his brief second campaign. He holds enough draw for people to want to know about him. As for him accomplishing significantly notable positions or actions, thats debatable and has potential to develop. -Jahnx (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of borderline, but I find myself persauded by the keep (yes, that's a !vote) arguments above. The endorsement from Wesley Clark also counts for something, in my view; he's from out of state, so for somebody to garner his endorsement in a primary race suggest to me that the endorsee is no nobody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Stevietheman. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (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.