Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dunn (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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No-name person in the news for a little while several years ago when he made a failed attempt to get his party's nomination to run for US Congress. He wasn't even a candidate in the general election! Bigtime

• Delete Fails
  WP:POLITICIAN resoundingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Wow, the previous discussion was sure an example of a headcount vs. a discussion of policy, eh? The closing admin seemed to credit such sterling reasons to keep as "It does no harm, "Being a lt. colonel is no small thing" and "major party nominee" (which, in fact, he never was). Sorry, no. Ravenswing 03:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  LtCol does not meet criteria #3 of SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  United States House of Representatives elections, 2006#North Carolina. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete He lost the primary, he fails notability, at least for any political roles. The article also up until recently gave the misleading impression he was the Democrat nominee, which he was not. Even being a candidate for the US house is not deemed notable, although if people recive significant coverage as such in multiple reliable sources it can be the msot notable thing they have done. This guy is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:BLAR is generally a good rule of thumb for candidates who run for national office, since the page history is preserved in case notability is achieved. Enos733 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I really don't think the page should qualify.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:45, 8 April 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.