Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Honour


 * 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 redirect to Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2014. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Scott Honour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sign of independent sources with in-depth coverage. Note that the Forbes article appears to have been cut and pasted from here which is clearly not independent. POLITICIAN and established practice is pretty clear that publicity generated as part of a political nomination doesn't count. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He hasn't even been nominated, much less elected to any office. He's just the first (of likely several) to announce he's running against the incumbent. Jonathunder (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, let me get this straight, the reason for deletion of this article is that he is irrelevant or not a politician, or something else? He should be included as an article because he is running for the political office, plus he is a businessman. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not assumed just because he is running for an office unless he has some success as a candidate. If he is a notable business executive there will be sources for that. If you can document that he's notable, please do so in the article. Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a "notable businessman" source * -- Billybob2002 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * that is his own resume that he  placed on a web site.  DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - First, we need to focus on all of WP:POLITICIAN as opposed to a single criterion of being elected. Mainly, being a major political figure who receives WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately, simply announcing that he is running does not make him a major political figure. The criteria of WP:POLITICIAN also leaves the door open to a failed candidate being notable as long as they meet WP:GNG. Upon looking at the sources, there are quite a few in WP:RS; however, they are basically just mentions of his announcement that he is running which do do not meet WP:SIGCOV. As such, after my long-winded explanation, delete would be the only option at this point. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Merely running for office is insufficient to establish notability. What we have is run of the mill news coverage of somebody announcing they are running for a major office. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2013 (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.