Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Callaghan
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Callaghan
This article is about a failed congressional candidate in the 2006 elections. None of his other accomplishments seem to pass
WP:BIO and there seems to be consensus that being a major party nom does not inherently impart worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete per nom. --Aaron 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unelected political candidate. Lankiveil 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: The substantive content of the article as well as the only link to it are based on Callaghan's 2006 candidacy, which seems to have passed unnotably. -- Shunpiker 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: admittedly, the article needs beefing up, but: (a) nine years Assistant U.S. Attorney; (b) Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection; (b) Chairman of the West Virginia Democratic Party; (c) 2004 West Virginia Democrat of the Year -- c'mon, guys, this is not a nobody. Just because he lost a congressional race doesn't mean he's not notable. He got 43%, fwiw (the closest margin of any statewide WV race this year) -- Sholom 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the final decision is to not keep the article, I highly recommend a redirect to West Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006, as was just done in a similar case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samm Simpson. A redirect preserves the page history (and older versions of the article), which would be valuable should (for example) this person again be a candidate in 2008, which would clearly (in my opinion) justify a separate article again. John Broughton | Talk 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sholom. Head of state department, 9 years as U.S. attorney, chairman of state party. Edison 22:03, 14 November 2006 (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.