Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Bonahoom


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Zach Bonahoom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Municipal employee who fails WP:POLITICIAN, receives only local coverage, none of which seems to be of any depth and therefore fails WP:GNG also Valenciano (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Based on what I see and what little I found, I don't think he would have met the notability guideline even if he had won the election in question.  He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN in any respect and I can see no other way in which notability could be demonstrated.  All the references I checked are entirely local and connected with the election.  Ubelowme (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The opponent referenced in the article (Sandy Kennedy) has not been deleted and is entirely local as well. Were standards set after her article was added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiz100 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct that Sandy Kennedy is also not notable, so I've nominated that for deletion. That, logicially, nullifies your keep argument, also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Valenciano (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I concur with Ubelowme's analysis. As for the Sandra Kennedy, that too may well not meet our inclusion criteria, but that is a separate issue and has no bearing on this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (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.