Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Calloway
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 6 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 13:52, 6 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don Calloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unelected politician for a state-level office; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Come back when he meets the requirements of wikipedia...--Crossmr (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN per nom. —97198 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ordinarily, I would say that an unelected candidate for the state legislature is not thereby notable. In this instance, however, he has no opposition. In the normal course of events, he'll become a state legislator (and hence notable). We're referring to Obama and McCain as their parties' presumptive nominees, and by the same standard, Calloway is a presumptive election winner. JamesMLane t c 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per JamesMLane's argument. This is as close to inevitable impending notability as we're going to get. No point deleting now only to recreate for (almost certain) later. The purpose of the rules, not the strict letter. Not a bureaucracy, after all :) RayAYang (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and cleanup per WP:COMMONSENSE. He really is running unopposed.[1] Unless something happens between now and January, I see little value in deleting the article just to bring it back in a few weeks. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2008 (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.