Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Jost

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. The more policy-based opinions favor deletion. J04n(talk page) 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jost

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

Non-notable perennial candidate and local organization leader. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, subject has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. However, the subject has received that coverage over multiple failed election attempts, and thus fails WP:POLITICIAN. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES a redirect to the article regarding the election should be the proper course of action, but the individual has ran for more than one national office, so a redirect target is debatable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A considerable number of respected sources on the internet exist about Paul Jost. I don't think it is all that important that he has lost every race he entered. What is important is that he has been a fixture in Virginia politics who has gathered a following. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it seems important to include articles about persons whose names continually pop up in at least regional news media. That way when someone sees the name he has a place to find relevant information on the subject person. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria for politicians is generally that they are presumed to be notable if they have won a major electoral contest - and presumed non-notable if they have not, all things being equal. If the only claim of notability is having been a (losing) candidate, then that's an awful thin claim. There are a lot of sources here, though, and that factors as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, evidently not that much of a "following" if he can't even win a primary. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per RightCow, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Unelected candidates for municipal election are not considered inherently notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated."' I would also add congressional and down-ballot statewide elections -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Meyer (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Goode, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marty Burke (Politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Bateman, and many other precedents. In a few cases, they get redirected to the biggest race they were involved in. Bearian (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2013 (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.