Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Acklin

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. Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Acklin[edit]

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

Non-notable attorney. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as mere candidate for office. See similar situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. Blargh29 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians has three bullets. I am going to quote the third, in full, and ask the contributor who nominated this article to explain why he or she doesn't think the references to the Acklin article fulfill: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Just being an elected local official, or 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."

Because all of those sources are within the context of the campaign, so they are not evidence of notability. See the above-refered "primary criterion" in the intro to WP:N, which describes notability as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Therefore, sources in the context of a (now) failed independent campaign do not demonstrate notability. Right now, all the subject is known for is being a candidate for office, which is not notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but I don't see how the first and third sentences of the comment above has any connection to the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The man was covered, extensively, by WP:RS, which, in their judgment, thought he was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Geo Swan (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N - significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Being a candidate for office may be notable in and of itself where it's widely recognised and commented on in relevant forums (see WP:POLITICIAN) and that's the case here. (Certainly many candidates for office never receive this attention.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've added a number of links to Talk:Kevin Acklin that provide significant coverage of Acklin's community and political activities. I added links until I got tired; there were plenty more listed in the convenient Google News search links listed above. No top results from PoliticsPA, a shame for sure, but subject more than meets notability requirements for anything WP:BLP, politician or not. Flowanda | Talk 06:40, 6 November 2009 (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.