Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton Schock


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clayton Schock

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This individual does not appear notable. Candidates are typically not deemed notable on Wikipedia just because they are candidates. His career has no citations of notability, and his political citations only indicate that he is running. Nothing cited indicates that his candidacy in itself is notable. Therefore, I respectfully nominate this article for deletion. SoxFan999 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article even states, in so many words, that he has no chance. He wildly fails WP:POLITICIAN for that reason. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability from any of those sources, and WP:POLITICIAN already has these considerations in mind. Individual additions to the ballot, and having that fact reported on, does not establish notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and I'm not finding any independent sources that satisfy WP:BIO in general. PDCook (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. JBsupreme (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It doesn't surprise me that Soxfan999 has nominated this article. If you look at his history of contribution's you will see that he has negatively edited everything having to do with the Florida Whig Party. This is a personal attack from the Modern Whig Party a group in which the FWP was once affiliated with. The attacks started instantly after Florida cut ties with the MWP. To say this party and it candidates are not notable is absurd. Look at the articles in reference that explain that the Florida Whig party and its candidates have made history in Florida simply by running the most ever third party candidates for Federal office in the States history. Look at the edit history and say that this is not personal. why has he never contributed to any thing besides the FWP article and the MWP's article and in the Florida Candidates articles?Jrogoski (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * attacking a new wikipedia editor doesn't take away from the underlying fact that the subject is not notable. This entry appears to be more of an ad for ITT Tech. If the party is notable for running candidates, then it is more appropriate on the party page and not a separate entry for some who is not notable. Also, typically the creator of a page doesn't vote. And for the record, I'm a Republican and am not affiliated with a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why a page creator shouldn't !vote. If they can layout a reasonable defense as to why the article should be kept, then by all means they should. However, this article simply does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and there are no reliable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. PDCook (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, no reliable sources to meet general notability guidelines. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.