Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hammons

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. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hammons[edit]

Sub-minor party political candidate in Colorado, ran for Congress and lost with no significant amount of votes, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN. Only RS coverage is passing mention of a few paras in general coverage of the race. Previously prodded (by me). Prod removed with rationale "Gave 3 reasons why Bill Hammons candidacy is noteworthy; ft: Hammons was the only Congressional candidate in the State to successfully petition onto the ballot in 2008; 92% increase; more $$ than Rep" (presumably the edit summary is truncated). gnfnrf (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. PROD was removed by User:Boulder1. If he wins, I'll be more forgiving. DARTH PANDA ^duel 01:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are plenty of sources, they're incidental (for example, his ballot listing on the elections board website) or self-published. I can't find any sources yet for this district, but everything I find seems to say that Democrats or Republicans won every seat in the House: therefore, he lost, and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He lost. He didn't even get enough votes to make CNN's percentage tracking. [1] gnfnrf (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability demonstrated the usual way. The guy founded a party, for fuck's sake. His notability extends well beyond just losing the election. Wily D 12:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Founding a non-notable party doesn't make him notable. Nor does his being a non-notable party founder make that party notable. Rklear (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, the party is notable because it's the subject of nontrivial coverage in reliable third party publications. Same as Hammons here. Wily D 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anybody can start a political party, the party and the founder of this one are non-notable though. RMHED (talk) 20:31, 7 November 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.