303:- The problem with your perennial candidates this that often their quixotic campaigns are a source of notability, even though they are destined to be failures (from an electoral point of view). But this article makes no claims to notabiility as a perennial 'crackpot' candidate if you will. It does make a lot of grandiose claims with nothing to back it up. "He is an expert in Canada's tax system", "He is also an expert in emissions trading especially for non-point sources, and has worked on land trust and fundraising problems related to forest preservation and preventing deforestation, though he has never made a living in this field, his advice is widely sought by other Greens on ecology-related accounting matters." What? A re-write and some independent sourcing could help.
166:-- a perennial candidate, activist in local causes. This is well-written, and properly linked and categorised. If properly cited, it should be kept. there are far less notable people who have articles in Knowledge, including practically every minor character in Star Wars, Star Trek and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Mr. King, in addition to running for political office all over the place, at least is real.
140:- all the content, besides the un-cited previous political candidacies, is non-notable. What information is notable, just the minimal information on the previous political runs, isn't really enough to justify the existence of one article. This article should be deleted and inline mentions added to the yearly election articles about his previous political candidacies.
181:
This individuals local causes are way too local to be of encyclopedic value; but, his public office runs are notable and I have recommended some course of action above to include this. Examples of non-notability and high subjectiveness without proper referencing within the article include "...tenant
263:
I can only admire his persistence in repeated electoral campaigns against all reasonable odds. Some possibly notable work is referred to in the article, such as "A briefing paper coauthored by King on GAAP and ISO 19011" If there were adequate references his work might be shown to be notable, but
182:
rep...involved in local causes for immigrants...expert...he has never made a living in this field...very active and prominent..." Well-written, and proper categorization and linkage are not part of the criteria used for judging inclusion, rather the
279:. I agree with Luckyluke that this article was clearly not written in an objective manner, and as such I am skeptical of how 'prominent' the fellow is claimed to be. Even taking all claims at face value, however, I don't see notability. -
329:
I never heard of the guy, but perenial cadidates are a useful part of democracy and by that action alone he is probaly notable enough- ie someone is likly to do a search to see "who is this guy" he has a way to go to match
113:
186:
are. There could be the most un-notable article that has characteristics of all three of those yet it does not satisfy notability to allow for inclusion. And
152:
but if there are external sources, I would change that to Keep. A perennial political outsider will be N if noticed by the media, just like anything else.
239:
17:
236:
86:
81:
90:
353:
187:
73:
36:
352:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
319:
233:
171:
52:
191:
141:
338:
335:
321:
307:
295:
283:
270:
255:
243:
212:
194:
174:
158:
144:
131:
55:
316:
292:
252:
209:
280:
228:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
190:
does not justify that this article should be kept. Each article is judged on its own merits.
167:
49:
223:- 104, 000 gtest results - none of the first 10 are this particular Dan King. Violates
121:
224:
128:
77:
107:
331:
304:
203:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
183:
266:
154:
69:
61:
251:
Non notable per
Vanderdecken, google has nothing much about him.--
346:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
120:
The guy isn't even remotely notable, and the article fails to
103:
99:
95:
208:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
356:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
264:this article does not make there case.
7:
24:
188:just because other articles exist
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
291:. Per all above, non-notable.
1:
373:
339:14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
322:04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
145:19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
132:19:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
56:16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
308:02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
296:16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
284:03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
271:07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
256:22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
244:13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
213:10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
195:18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
175:12:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
159:00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
349:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
184:notability guidelines
334:by the looks of it
215:
364:
351:
227:I believe, NN. β
207:
204:
111:
93:
34:
372:
371:
367:
366:
365:
363:
362:
361:
360:
354:deletion review
347:
202:
84:
68:
65:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
370:
368:
359:
358:
342:
341:
324:
310:
298:
286:
274:
258:
246:
217:
216:
206:
198:
197:
178:
177:
161:
147:
118:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
369:
357:
355:
350:
344:
343:
340:
337:
333:
328:
325:
323:
320:
318:
317:Thewinchester
314:
311:
309:
306:
302:
299:
297:
294:
293:Goodnightmush
290:
287:
285:
282:
278:
275:
272:
269:
268:
262:
259:
257:
254:
253:Paloma Walker
250:
247:
245:
242:
241:
238:
235:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
214:
211:
210:Mailer Diablo
205:
200:
199:
196:
193:
189:
185:
180:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
162:
160:
157:
156:
151:
148:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
127:
123:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
348:
345:
326:
312:
300:
288:
281:Joshuapaquin
276:
265:
260:
248:
232:
229:Vanderdecken
220:
201:
163:
153:
149:
137:
125:
122:cite sources
119:
45:
43:
31:
28:
332:John Turmel
313:Weak delete
301:Weak Delete
261:Weak delete
168:Ground Zero
150:Weak delete
50:John Reaves
315:per nom.
129:GreenJoe
114:View log
70:Dan King
62:Dan King
87:protect
82:history
305:Montco
289:Delete
277:Delete
249:Delete
225:WP:BIO
221:Delete
138:Delete
126:Delete
91:delete
53:(talk)
46:delete
336:cmacd
192:Luke!
142:Luke!
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
327:Keep
164:Keep
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
267:DGG
155:DGG
112:β (
231:β΄
170:|
124:.
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
48:.
273:.
240:Ο
237:ΞΎ
234:β«
172:t
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.