Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Richard Bailey

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) 01:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Richard Bailey[edit]

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

A high school kid who ran for office and lost. Seems to fail WP:BIO. — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria. The claim regarding him being the youngest is unsourced and even if it is true, it would deserve, at best, a line in the relevant constituency article. Valenciano (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of how much coverage he may have received for his candidacy, he would only be notable for one event.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, which states that "being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." There is no significant coverage in reliable, independant sources to establish notability of this failed candidate. Perhaps he will be successful in his political career and establish notability in the future, but it does not exist at present. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2010 (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.