Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D. Protack


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael D. Protack
Current candidate for Republican nomination for US Senate in DE; unsuccessfully sought Republican nomination for Governor in 2004; honorable but unremarkable military career; no history of officeholding asserted, but he is a Republican committeeman and delegate for a subcounty Republican organization; fails WP:BIO JChap (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question If he's got the nomination, then isn't he notable? The senate is a high office, and folks might want to know a bit about the main candidates.  Rklawton 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer He's a candidate for the nomination; he does not have it. WP:NOT an election guide.  Candidates generally only have lasting notability if they win.  JChap (talk • contribs) 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - at least until/unless he gets the nomination. Rklawton 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep His activities are newsworthy and his name regularly appears in the papers, and is the object of considerable public discussion among those interested in politics in Delaware. I would say he could be considered a "Major local political figure who receives (or received) significant press coverage," see Notability (people) and certainly passes the "Google" test. I think a person that draws 5,000 votes in a major party contest, and is likely to draw as many or more in the near future, is notable enough for a short article, and the Delaware political scene is certainly affected because of his activities. stilltim 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete None of that is listed here. Candidacy alone does not warrant inclusion. 'Significant press coverage' means out-of-state and national press. That hasn't happened here. 5,000 votes in a 'major party contest' usually means a pretty substantial defeat. The tally for the governor's primary on the article page attests to that. --DarkAudit 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He's a candidate it's political season. Try nominating if he loses the party primary. --waffle iron talk 17:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment since when did we included bios because one day they might become notable?  Rklawton 18:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment He is already notable because he's a serious candidate, regardless of how well he does. Also keep in mind that 10,000 votes (total) can win a statewide election in Delaware. Finally, how many congressmen from anywhere in the country get "out-of-state and national press" coverage? Not many...but surely they are notable. stilltim 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with your argument. First, there is no citation in the article that stipulates he is a "serious" candidate (whatever that is).  Second, he is not a congressperson as you state.  If he were already a Senator, then I wouldn't have supported his nomination for deletion.  Lastly, he's not even his party's nominee for the race.  He is a candidate to be a candidate.  The matter at hand is should we delete him at least until he wins his party's nomination.  The argument I made against the "weak keep" was that we don't keep bios to see if the person will become notable, we add bios only after the person becomes notable.  If this guy doesn't get the nomination for office, then his bio is going to read "... was an "also ran" for the nomination for Senator - and I highly recommend we don't start including those folks in this encyclopedia.  Otherwise, we're going to be add a lot (more) nutcases to this project.  If we try to sort out who is "serious" and who isn't - that's going to be tough to verify.  It'll be far easier to let the parties sort out who is a serious contender by allowing them to nominate the person to run.  It's verifiable, and it won't be subject to debate.  Rklawton 02:46, 30 July 2006 (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.