Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dunn (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tim Dunn
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No-name person in the news for a little while several years ago when he made a failed attempt to get his party's nomination to run for US Congress. He wasn't even a candidate in the general election! Bigtime WP:POLITICIAN fail. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN resoundingly.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wow, the previous discussion was sure an example of a headcount vs. a discussion of policy, eh? The closing admin seemed to credit such sterling reasons to keep as "It does no harm, "Being a lt. colonel is no small thing" and "major party nominee" (which, in fact, he never was).  Sorry, no.   Ravenswing   03:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2006, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; that being said the subject falls under WP:BLP1E as all of that significant coverage is regarding his candidacy in 2006 for a congressional seat, therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES the article should be directed to the article/section which I listed above. Additionally, although the subject has so far served honorably, the subject's military service isn't notable as defined by WP:SOLDIER. LtCol does not meet criteria #3 of SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2006. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete He lost the primary, he fails notability, at least for any political roles. The article also up until recently gave the misleading impression he was the Democrat nominee, which he was not.  Even being a candidate for the US house is not deemed notable, although if people recive significant coverage as such in multiple reliable sources it can be the msot notable thing they have done.  This guy is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections, 2006. WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that losing candidates for a national office, if they are not already notable, are merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls. WP:BLAR is generally a good rule of thumb for candidates who run for national office, since the page history is preserved in case notability is achieved. Enos733 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I really don't think the page should qualify.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:45, 8 April 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.