Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Boss (4th 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Boss
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although there are some sources presented, most, if not all, aside from FEC filings, are simply local reports that are usually compulsory for them to report on. Running for office as a perennial candidate, and being a promoter of conspiracy theories is not notable. Gage (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 00:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - The fact that he ran for office does not itself make him notable, no, and I don't think he would be a keep on WP:POLITICIAN grounds, but the sources about him for the various political endeavors as well as his conspiracy theorizing collectively appear to be sufficient to get by WP:GNG. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I have consistently favored keeping articles about U.S. presidential candidates who have appeared on official state ballots, including fringe candidates. He has received enough significant coverage to pass the GNG, as shown by the links brought forward in the 3rd AfD debate, which was closed decisively as "keep". Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Current sources are not the best (per nom) but he is covered in Campaigns & Elections, Vice and the book, Occupying Wall Street. Enough to satisfy GNG in my opinion. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Sure, he's the nut job perennial candidate who runs under the "NSA did 911" label, but he keeps on getting reliable coverage and the article supports that. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has appeared on least a handful of state ballots in presidential elections, and has just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, as demonstrated in different comments above.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Agree that there's enough coverage to make the guy notable; and hey, since the NSA is preventing him from getting any other press we might as well keep the page up as long as it stays NPOV. Dramamoose (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2014 (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.