Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arto Lahti (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The result was withdrawn. ✗plicit 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Lahti (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)

Failed political candidate, so fails WP:NPOL. Attempts to determine WP:NPROF compatibility were muddled due to search results for an identically-named dermatologist CiphriusKane (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Finland. CiphriusKane (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I was unaware of the previous AfD, so I apologise. Given the mention of sources in the previous AfD (which were never added to the article), I am unsure whether the coverage is sufficient but would rather leave it be CiphriusKane (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'm not sure whether withdrawal was necessary. The last AfD was a bit inconclusive. It got side-tracked by the dermatologist, and in the end became a no-consensus keep simply because of the likelihood that there would be Finnish newspaper articles about him as a candidate in an election that he lost, expressed by one editor and endorsed by one other. I am not Finnish. We need someone here who can establish whether his candidacy has had lasting impact, or is relevant outside its time. If it has/is, then an article is possible. If he's only someone who didn't win an election, then we have a problem. Elemimele (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Here's some Finnish language coverage from Google, but I don't have the time to do a proper source analysis:
  • Newspaper articles about bid for presidency: [1], [2], [3], [4]
  • Newspaper articles about bid for parliament: [5], [6], [7]
  • Press release -tier article about new job: [8]
  • A rather short interview/bio: [9]

Overall, I'm not super thrilled about the level of coverage, but it's not non-existent nor is it strictly about a single event. Counting both the bids for presidency and parliament as a very broad and rather vaguely defined single event of "attempted to get into politics" doesn't really gel with me either. There's a certain je ne sais quoi that makes me want to not keep this, but I'm not sure what policy that !vote would be based on. As such, a very weak keep. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2022 (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.