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. WjBscribe 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Roulstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Losing political candidate does not meet the standards for notability. JakeZ 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under current WP:BIO standards, though I guess pending what editors decide about certain arguments in the Roy C. Strickland debate. Mwelch 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again: This cannot be compared to the Roy C. Strickland article. There is not too much here. The Roy Strickland article is concise, thorough, and very well-written. There is no comparison. Strickland ran for office in two states. He was a pioneer of the LA GOP. No comparison, as I see it. In addition, Strickland has an impressive business career.

If one checks the articles considered for deletion, virtually NONE of them comes anywhere near to the standards in the Roy Strickland article.

Billy Hathorn 01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You've misunderstood me. I'm not saying the articles are directly comparable. One of the arguments posed by two of the editors in favor of keeping Strickland is that all major party candidates for U.S. Congress should be considered automatically notable, regardless of other notability criteria. If Strickland has other item of notability, then that's applicable in his debate, but it's beside the point that I'm addressing here. The point here is that if that specific argument gains traction and indeed seems to be a consensus among editors, then that sentiment does directly affect this one. I've started a new topic on the talk page of WP:BIO to solicit input there on the issue. Mwelch 06:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The problem with this article is sourcing, but there is no doubt that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist for the runner-up in a major election. Dhaluza 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominators argument for deletion is based in "inherent non-notability", which is not supported by WP:BIO. For sources, please see the following article in Seattle Times and 198 other news results for "Doug Roulstone". -- Black Falcon 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Probably won't matter in ten years, but Black Falcon and Dhaluza are correct that sources do exist.--Kubigula (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2007 (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.