Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Pentel (3rd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pentel[edit]

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

Non-notable politician who was only a gubernational listed-person for a few times, there's essentially been nothing else, not only for this article but for coverage itself; my own searches are barely finding anything and, anything there actually is, only for that time and even the sources that were past mentioned as being "big" and "significant" are no longer actually convincing (they barely even were, at the time). For example, the 2nd AfD said "I believe consensus on individuals such as Pentel has shifted since the first AfD" which it in fact had even at the time, and certainly is known now. The history itself also speaks for itself considering there's barely been anything and what was ever even listed was not actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and reliably source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides his candidacy itself, then he must win the election and thereby hold office to get an article because election. But nothing here constitutes a credible claim of notability, and the volume of reliable source coverage here is not enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable perennial candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 8 August 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.