Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Knuppe

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ken Knuppe

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ken Knuppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. All the references are pre win coverage before elections. Been on the cat:nn category with a notability tag since June 2010 and never been updated. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, the article conjectures on if he won, which is meaningless; his biography, which is not inherently noteworthy; and the fact that he lost an election, which is not noteworthy in an of itself. Bgrus22 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Hypothetical "third cowboy governor" is a laughable piece of WP:TRIVIA. KidAd • SPEAK 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Delete per above Rlink2 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete when you get trounced in the primary, getting less than 5% of the vote, you are almost always a non-notable politician, and we do not have any other factors that would suggest otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete There's really not much to say about this individual. Surprised this article has lasted 12 years given the complete lack of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I have seen unsourced and even hoax articles last over 15. Pre-2010 Wikipedia was so flooded with junk it has taken a long time to clear it out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and others. Thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one and losing — but this makes no claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, and there are no discernible grounds to treat his candidacy as a special case. (No, "would have been the third cowboy in South Dakota history to be elected to the state's top office" is not an important historic distinction.) Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Even having been the first cowboy would not be an important historical distinction. Now if someone would have been the first cowboy, and every paper from the LA Times to the Washington Times to the New York Times wrote an indepth article on him because he would be the first cowboy, and he lost the election, that might be a case worth keeping, but this is not that case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2022 (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.