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. Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Two-time congressional candidate who lost both races. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as he lost both times and hasn't apparently served any other political office. The 2010 race itself did receive significant coverage but that is covered in the article about the race itself. Mr. Miller doesn't meet other WP:BIO notability requirements, only press coverage was for aforementioned campaign. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is so little info on the page that I googled, but I could find no indication of notability. He has a very common name, but even keywords didn't help.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I only noticed those old AFDs after ivoting. Note 2 things about them. One is that they took place during each of his 2 campaigns for congress. the 2nd is that at least some editors saying keep were under the impression that he was running for Senate. The final iVote, by a an experienced editor, states asserts that it "will invariably be found that a major party nominee for a US senate seat is notable, by the GNG, and confirmed by common sense. The positions are of such enduring political significance, & therefore attract extensive national coverage of both possible senators. (This probably holda for the House of Representatives & state Governors, but the case is really clear for Senators.)" But this seems to have been an error; Miller was running for a House seat. He had then recently left the Marines and was some sort of small business owner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The inclusion criteria for candidates has changed since 2010. Back then we though we could support articles on all major party candidates for US congress, we have since realized it is an unworkable endevor, and bound to always lead to presentism and resentism problems. Beyond this, a primary is not an election, and winning it is not the same as being elected to office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but consensus has changed to exclude certain candidates as automatically notable. There is nothing to indicate this person would otherwise be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (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.