Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Schuh


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve Schuh
Notability/importance in question. ghits: --NMChico24 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep until Candidates and elections is settled, as he's a candidate in a current election. -- Mikeblas 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Article as written is vanity. The names of his dogs and kids are not encyclopedic no matter what his political aspirations. --Xrblsnggt 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. The original posting edit note of the article admits it's a campaign ad. Nowhere else in the article does it mention he's running for anything. --DarkAudit 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone deleted the sentence about how he's running for the Maryland state House. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:C&E if there's anything here worth keeping. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure vanity, even if the election sentence is included. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanispam. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanispam.  Putting "nationally recognised" don't make it so. -- GWO
 * Delete. There's not even a mention that he's a candidate in an election. Captainktainer * Talk 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable biography. Fails WP:BIO. Even assuming that the Candidates and election proposal became policy, it quite clearly states "That does not mean, however, that all candidates for office should automatically receive their own articles in Wikipedia. Articles on candidates for office, like all Wikipedia articles, must meet standards of quality and verifiability." This one is unverifiable as it entirely lacks sources. It is also clearly vanity and fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Gwernol 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, its not necessary to have every state congressional candidate in Wikipedia Mrcfjf 14:03, 22 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.