Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Scott Holden

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Scott Holden[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Failed political candidate. Lost in 2018 general election, and lost in 2020 primary. Scant coverage outside of the election. Chuka Chief (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Unsuccessful political candidate lacking in-depth coverage in reliable sources outside his campaign. Meatsgains^(talk) 20:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We long ago decided to not be a gazeteer of all defeated candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for political office per se — to qualify for inclusion, he would have to show either (a) that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) that his candidacy was markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies for some reason that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). But there's nothing here that clears either of those bars. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2020 (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.