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 redirect‎ to 1948 United States presidential election#Faithless Elector Controversy. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Parks (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)

After conducting WP:BEFORE, I fail to see how this article is notable. I was unable to find any reliable information on this person other than he was an faithless elector in 1948, even then the sources are quite dubious. In addition, this article was created in 2008 and has hardly changed at all since, so I believe this is a forever stub. In my opinion, this is at the very least WP:SINGLEEVENT. TheBritinator (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. TheBritinator (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 1948 United States presidential election#Faithless Elector Controversy, a section I just made about what he did. I don't think he qualifies for his own article about himself per WP:1E which states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The 1948 election was significant, but his role was defintely not a large one (like it didn't change anything + it's just one vote out of 450). MolecularPilot 01:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. TheBritinator (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the redirect.--Mpen320 (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This is a WP:BIO1E, so he wouldn't qualify for his own standalone biographical article on that basis alone, but it was certainly significant enough to cover as a subsection of a related article about the larger (and obviously notable) topic that it was part of. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2024 (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.