Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas E. Mink

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas E. Mink

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 0.2% of the vote in the June primaries. ral 315 18:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable Soltak 18:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My dad ran as an independent a few years back and got 8%, and even he isn't anywhere close to deserving an article.--Frag 21:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind. Gaius Cornelius 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Mink and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. PedanticallySpeaking 14:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. Basically, what this article says is "this guy has 100 friends over the age of 18 in Ohio." -R. fiend 16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge for reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Peter_Fossett. --JamesB3 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
[s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. (Almost there...) Aerion //talk 04:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. And apparently he has run for other offices. Academic Challenger 05:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.