Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Kennedy

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. Tone 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kennedy[edit]

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

was undelted as a contested prod but this is unsourced and it a bio of a nn unsuccessful politician. Doesn't meet core content requirements, V RS and BIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1S. Not nominating for speedy only because I took out a second sentence which was an unsourced summary of a couple of political positions. At any rate, even if we sourced that or other content, he's still a NN local politician. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Weak only because it's not at all fair to judge this by it's current version, which simply says "Scott Kennedy is a former candidate for Mayor of Seattle. He came in 5th out of 11 candidates in the non-partisan primary." (Coincidentally, it was stubified two days before it was nominated). On the other hand, my feeling is that even at its best [1], the subject doesn't meet notability requirements. His claim to fame was having at one time run (so the article says) Axcelis Technologies, which is not a Seattle-based company and is not the company listed as having developed Evolver. Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:1S. Crafty (talk) 22:40, 22 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.