Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Proft


 * 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. Krakatoa Katie  07:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dan Proft

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Subject finished dead last in the Republican Governor primary in February 2010. Has done nothing notable since then. Article hasn't been touched since the election showing a lack of interest. He served as little more than a vanity candidate in the race getting less than 50,000 votes in a state of 13 million. Illinois Reason (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - A lack of edits isn't a reason to delete an article. Appears to have enough coverage to appease WP:POLITICIAN.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 23:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though a news.google search for anything recent shows only one lone Chicago blog? Proft News Google Search Illinois Reason (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A search for "anything recent" does not show a lot, but an archive search shows plenty. Notability does not wear off. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)'
 * With a graph.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick comment on that graph, since he does PR and works as a spokesperson, it goes without saying he'll have some press coverage, but not of himself. Even though he is quoted, he is speaking for someone else.  Does that help notability?  I would think not, but open to correction. Illinois Reason (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Every election has someone who came in "dead last": that doesn't make those candidates unnotable. Also, calling someone a "vanity candidate" is brazenly POV unless it can be supported by argument, which thus far it is not: fifty thousand votes is still a substantial sum, no matter how you slice it. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Steve - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Redirect per Ray (below). The sources to make him notable just aren't there. Of the 15 references listed at the article, four are from his campaign website. The rest are very unimpressive; the only mainstream Reliable Source item is one story from WGN News. There is a link to the Chicago Tribune "featured articles", but that page doesn't appear to have anything about him. Google News Archive likewise turns up little except "Cicero spokesman Dan Proft said..." The number of votes he got is irrelevant; what he needs is "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", and he doesn't have it. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. Per MelanieN, notability is not established - the level of coverage is not significant. Ray  Talk 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, a redirect might be more appropriate than an outright delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 7 December 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.