Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole Savior


 * 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. No consensus about notability, but at least the article now has reliable sources.  Sandstein  09:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ole Savior

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual. Only non-self-published source that directly discusses the individual is a blog post. William S. Saturn (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The above statement is no longer true, as I have added several additional sources to the article referencing various newspaper articles. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Many potential third-party sources to use include but are not limited to:       Difluoroethene (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article, adding many new sources to verify Savior's notability in Minnesota. It's also worth noting that Ole Savior gets 1,020,000 Google hits, which is almost as many as Rent Is Too Damn High (which gets 1,030,000 ). Ole Savior is in many ways the Jimmy McMillan of the Midwest, and the two candidates have received similar amounts of media coverage; in my opinion, both pass the GNG. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually if you google "Ole Savior" as a phrase there are about 650 individual ghitsPorturology (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor political candidate who has never won political office. As far as I can tell he has never won more than 5% of the vote. One of the articles quoted is an essay on whether such fringe candidates are worthy of press attention or are mere distractionsPorturology (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Gage (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per first keep. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I love politics, and this is the first time I have ever heard of the guy. He is not notable at all. The fact that a person has run for a position many, many, many times doesn't mean he should have and article. Meanwhile, it is a terribly written article. Most of the sources are from HIS OWN WEBSITE. Soxrock24 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Perennial candidates who have generated media attention are regularly included on Wikipedia. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG which states that the subject must be discussed by a reliable source in detail beyond merely a trivial mention. Much of the third party sources cited above by Difluoroethene, such as Politics1 (blog) and Google search results (see WP:GYNOT) do not meet WP:RS standards, and several of the ones that do qualify do not give the individual significant coverage, but rather little more than a mention. The ones that cover him significantly are are all local press. There is no establishment of notability beyond perhaps a small degree of local celebrity status in the area of his residence. Which in not enough to justify an encyclopedia article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, do we have a consensus? Soxrock24 (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Difluoroethene (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with Difluoroethene. --Dezidor (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - there appears to be a special breed of Minnesotans who run over and over again, and raise themselves up to the level of general notability by dint of being in the news repeatedly over many years. Harold Stassen is one such person; this subject appears to be another. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Harold Stassen was Governor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article cites heaps of sources that are either reliable third party or governmental. Notability seems well-established. Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We definitely have a consensus now. In fact, I think that the article has been improved, so I change my vote to Keep. Soxrock24 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2011 (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.