Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Suprun

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Suprun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Faithless elector" and two-time failed congressional candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I'm pretty sure we have a number of articles for other two-tie failed congressional candidates as well, Jana Sanchez being one. I'll reconsider my vote if more evidence is given to Suprun's particular lack of notability. Love of Corey (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ WP:OTHERSTUFF. If Jana Sanchez is being used to support another page's notability, you know you're in trouble. KidAd • SPEAK 21:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's supposed to be the difference between Suprun and Sanchez, then? If there's none, I'll nominate Sanchez's article for deletion, then. Love of Corey (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Both articles should be deleted. KidAd • SPEAK 22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you didn't answer my question. Love of Corey (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE. Articles should be evaluated on their own merits. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neither "faithless elector" nor "unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election" are grounds for Wikipedia articles per se — but the article makes no strong claim that he has notability for other reasons independently of that. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable failed candidate, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Firefighter eh? Oh let's keep him. Delete, non-notable candidate. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2021 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.