Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Bott (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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bott

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful mayoral candidate who has received little or no coverage outside of routine campaign press, per Google News search. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. First nominated was halted as election campaign was in progress, and there was reason to believe the subject's coverage and notability might have in the process of increasing. However, this hasn't proven to have been the case and he received only %15 of the vote in a citywide election. Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed politician. Only of local interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I do not believe this individual meets the notability requirements. He has campaigned for election and received some coverage related to that event but otherwise has not received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2013 (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.