Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kelleher


 * 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) w umbolo   ^^^  09:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert Kelleher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failed U.S. Senate Nominee that doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Only independent sources are related to his failed candidate status. Redditaddict69 09:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (categories)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69  09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict</b><b style="color:#339900">6</b><b style="color:#3399FF">9</b>  09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * keep He was a notable perennial candidate written up in the NYT and in Politics as well as in every paper in Montana, particularly for his 2008 run. Possibly this could be merged some article on that contest. Mangoe (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete perennial candidates do not add to notability. Nor does serving in a state constitutional convention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This individual clearly passes WP:GNG — from the 1980s into the 21st century he had extensive coverage in many state and some national publications.  NPOL is a set of guidelines, WP:GNG is policy. In this case, he was notable, not merely a perennial candidate, but as a delegate to Montana's 1972 Constitutional Convention.  He also was a truly unique figure who had a career that spanned several decades.  He ran under the banner of multiple political psrties, and his unusual support for a "parliamentary style" of government was rather unique for an American politician.  His surprising stint as the GOP nominee against Max Baucus in 2008, having previously run both as a Green and as a Democrat clearly tops many other people notorious for unusual stunts (such as, to give only one examble, Lawnchair Larry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 12:59, 18 August 2018 (PDT) (UTC)
 * Keep: Keep as per montanabw's statements. Also, there are dozens of news articles available for this individual to support GNG. But first see this link Our Campaigns a web site that shows much of his political work from 1964 through 2008. Note that he died in 2011. Here are just a few examples of coverage for him that spans the last two decades:, , , , and . I also have subscriptions to newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com. They are dozens of articles on him. Here's one clipping I took from 1996:  from the Great Falls Tribune on June 2, 1996. There is definitely a case for longevity as a unique figure as stated above and significant news coverage. I can search for more news coverage if needed. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 21:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Montana, 2008. Looking at the reliable sources available on the internet, besides the numerous obits the individual comes up a lot. That said most are only passing mention of the subject of this article, such as the parliamentary style proposal mentioned above, and this one regarding this election, or this election and do not rise to the status of significant coverage. The New York Times article is an obit, (wrong Robert Kelleher) and is the benchmark for having an article for a deceased American to have an obit in the NYT (and elsewhere)? I am curious as to The New York Times article mentioned above, as my google-fu is failing me at the moment. Is it in context to one of of the elections, and is it significant coverage? The subject of the article in question is quoted here, but it is not significant coverage about them self. Therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES, I have to say a redirect is in order, as the individual was a major candidate in a federal race, but did not appear to be notable outside of that context. Of course if significant coverage and general notability can be established, the redirect can always be changed back into a stand alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While local sources this article by the Helena Independent Record, and this article by the Montana Standard clearly are significant coverage, and are sufficient for the subject of the article to pass WP:GNG. Therefore I am changing my opinion to Keep. Thanks to for finding these.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable per the sources for a Wikipedia article. We have multiple levels of notability on WP which can determine if subject matter should be included. This topic is notable enough.(Talk page stalker on occasion)(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Keep Significant coverage in Missoulian, Montana Standard and New York Times. Obviously meets WP:GNG: "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in published, reliable, neutral sources, locally, statewide, and nationally. Candidate in several federal elections. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a notable perennial candidate who has received coverage in national publications. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 16:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.