Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Crowe (Arizona)

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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Crowe (Arizona)

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN since he is a candidate and not an office holder (actually he's not officially a candidate yet). The election-related references in the article mention him trivially, as a possible candidate, if they mention him at all. Non-election-related references given are about the company, not the individual (ditto for the awards). Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability is as a potential candidate, but he fails WP:POLITICIAN. His candidacy, if it occurs, should be covered in an article about the 2012 Arizona Senate election, along with all the candidates, in a neutral fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made some changes to this article, most specifically to the sources used. The Wikipedia standards for notability include that the subject be covered by multiple secondary independent sources, and though non-secondary/independent sources are mentioned, the vast body of information in this article comes from secondary verifiable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emb3333 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have further cleaned up the references on this page. There is no original research, and the information is easily obtained from secondary independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emb3333 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 6 July 2011 (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.