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 RESULT. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wright (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Losing political candidate does not meet the standards for notability. JakeZ 22:46, 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 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be compared to the Roy C. Strickland article. This is a mere stub. The Roy Strickland article is concise, thorough, and wery 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.

Billy Hathorn 01:12, 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]
• Delete Unsuccessful Congressional candidates are not inherently notable, and the article makes absolutely no assertion of notability beyond this. Caknuck 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Do the Democrats typically nominate completely non-notable people to run for the US House of Representatives? Or is it just necessary to delete all stubs? I have to admit I haven't found anything on a quick google search right now, but that's because of his very common name. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd agree we could keep an article here if reliable sources were provided. Since there's nothing much here currently, it's no great loss to delete it. Open to recreation if sources are found. Notability is arguable, but it's not reasonable to keep an article in place with no sources. EdJohnston 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I deleted his 2006 campaign website from the article because it's a dead link. EdJohnston 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment I'm overly curious now. Has ANYONE managed to find any proof of this fellow's existence outside of the campaign? His 2006 campaign site wasn't even in the Wayback Machine, so I couldn't look for clues there. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He seems to own a chain of medical clinics, and attended BYU. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN also-ran. --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Okay, he's an owner of a chain of 11 medical clinics and he ran for office. I haven't checked what that means to WP:N, but I'd have to suspect he fails the notability test of "will anyone in 100 years need this information?". I'm also satisfied that the AfD's not rushed, as this article was created Dec 2005 and nothing worthwhile has been added since. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 year test is not a generally accepted criterion--I think if it were formally proposed now it would be soundly rejected, as it makes no sense whatsoever. WP is not intended for the 22nd century, but is an encyclopedia intended for current use now, and whatever part is still relevant in 100 years will be of historical interest only.We are likely to have far more sophisticated reference sources by then.

• Keep I accept the major party candidate rationale, because it implies that the item will be sourceable, though the eds. here may not yet have succeeded. DGG 19:57, 30 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.