Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Schelske (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Schelske

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

Here are the claims to notability:

unsuccessful run for state office. (successful runs for state office are generally the threshold for eligibility)
had a band as a kid, opened for notable bands. (fails WP:BAND terribly
married a notable person (fails WP:NOTINHERITED, similar to how "played for a notable band" doesn't make the band notable)
was the husband-manager of notable person (this would need a depth of coverage to prove notability, perhaps similar to René Angélil and Mutt Lange, respecting WP:OSE)
divorced a notable person (fails WP:BLP1E, and having a muzzle/C&D prevents any depth of coverage)

The rest of it is very poorly written PR fluff, which is especially unfortunate because it was submitted by his PR agency. ("earned a place as a significant political personality", "It was a high-risk business", "not your typical country music band", "filled with adventure... insurmountable odds") tedder (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it appears to also be a copyvio. Given it was submitted by the PR agency itself, I assume we can assume good faith by not blanking the article for now. tedder (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Failed politician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see enough substantial coverage from reliable sources to justify having this BLP. Steven Walling 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is he clearly non-notable, but the article does not have enough references to verify all its content and this search only turns up the same story from different news sources and even includes results from unreliable gossip sites. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2011 (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.