Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Life (politician) (2nd nomination)

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. Discussion regarding a potential page move to change the article's title can continue on the article's talk page or at WP:RM. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life (politician)

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

The vast majority of this coverage is local news coverage for an extremely minor, and always trounced, candidate. There is a little coverage of him more broadly just for the bizarreness of his actions, but nothing appraoching indepth or substantial. He fails all guidelines for notability of politicians. Beyond this, the article was deleted before with nothing of significance having happened since. He has run a few times, with even less impact than earlier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
The Idaho Press-Tribune also did several stories on him. He seems to be notable as an activist and protester, although as the nominator mentioned it is not likely that he will ever win an election. Borock (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There seemed to be a certain flavor of Wikipedia:I just don't like it in the previous AfD discussion, back in 2008.Borock (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline NPOL but definite
WP:GNG. At the first AfD in 2008, they complained that he "received temporary attention". Six years later, it's still coming. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable, though the title should include his real name, rather just his changed name. Dinkytown talk 16:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could start an

WP:COMMONNAME is "Pro-Life". (And I rather doubt he would have such notability without the name change.) --BDD (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - ever since I was
notable loony-bin. Bah humbug! Bearian (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename to his birth-name. If he's ever successful (e.g., Prince the musician becoming a mega-star under that moniker), then we can entertain it, but until then it's merely a repeatedly-failed publicity stunt.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2014 (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.