Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole Savior (2nd 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ole Savior
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Perennial candidate for political office who never won anything, no substantive coverage (coverage in reliable sources consists of gentle mockery and mentions of frivolous lawsuits - the rest is his website, blogs and similar stuff). Google Hits are not evidence of notability, anyone can get them for running on a ticket with an Elvis impersonator. Hekerui (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Winning anything" is not a prerequisite for notability. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why I addressed the coverage immediately afterwards. Hekerui (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a losing candidate and no other claim of notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, "If you've voted in Minnesota before, you've seen Savior's name. He's sought statewide offices for nearly two decades." That's a claim of notability right there. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, that is a claim of notability, but not a demonstration of notability. We have established consensus about what notability consists of for politicians. Can you offer examples of in-depth coverage (not passing mentions) in reliable sources, other than "gentle mockery" as Hekerui said, of his many runs for office?  This coverage doesn't rise above human interest stories, or slow day news fillers, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN These guidelines are the result of long discussions and consensus - they should be followed unless there is a compelling reason to ignore them. Porturology (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Never heard of him before and he is running for president apparently. It seems like theres enough sources on him. I dont see any reason to delete him since a decent article has been put together. It just needs some cleanup.--Metallurgist (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV SOXROX (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The previous AfD closed only ten days ago. Why was this renominated so soon?   Ravenswing  01:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? There was no consensus, the previous discussion had some arguments (like Google Hits) I'd want reexamined, and we can't reasonably expect notable campaign developments from this candidate, rendering a longer waiting period moot. Hekerui (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This guy is very unnotable. WP:POLITICIAN says that just because a person was a nominee, it doesn't mean they should have an article if tey don't win. Savior has done this multiple times and never come close. Little Johnny over here might run for governor of New York three times. Does that mean he should have an article? Of course not IF NOONE KNOWS WHO HE IS outside of Minnesota. 75.150.67.34 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The following three arguments in favor of keeping this article were originally posted on the article's talk page in August 2010, and have been copied here. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the reasons for proposed deletion: "A minor and unsuccessful candidate for minor public office with no other evidence of notability. Previously deleted by prod" Mr. Savior has not run for "minor public office". Instead, he has only run for major public office (ranging from US Congress to US President).  Though he never won any major office, he received more votes in the 2008 Democratic NH primary than other candidates who do have long standing Wikipedia articles.  Mill1627 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mill627. For observers of Minnesota politics, Ole Savior is a notable figure. He is a recurrent candidate for statewide office. Every election cycle state media outlets give mention to his candidacy, and a wikipedia page with an objective description of the man would be helpful to the electorate. Also, his name is Ole Savior. Welle (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Mill1627 and Ahwelle. Mr. Savior was included in a number of the debates last spring featuring all of the candidates attempting to garner the DFL endorsement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxpage (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should those really apply? Those were comments from nearly a year ago that is not based on the current article. If they want to vote yes or no, they should come here and do it, right? SOXROX (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. If he was notable then, he's notable now. Also, this article is in much better shape now in terms of sourcing than it was in August 2010. If the article deserved to be kept in 2010, how much more so now! 70.99.104.234 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not kept before, there was merely no consensus in the previous discussion.Hekerui (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. For their opinion to count, they must come here and make their case. SOXROX (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Publicity-seeking nobody. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 7 May 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.