- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Merrill Gay
- Merrill Gay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix ( talk) 04:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future mayoral election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, as the creator wrongly claimed when removing the prod notice a few hours ago: if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. But neither serving on a school board nor being executive director of a non-profit organization constitutes a notability freebie either: school board is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL at all, and the organizational work is referenced to the organization's own self-published content about itself, not to any reliable source coverage about his work in that role which would get him past WP:GNG for it. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, it's longstanding procedure here that merely being a candidate, even a favourite, is not alone sufficient grounds for notability. I don't see any other compelling reason why this person would quality for WP:BIO; he's involved with some entities that may be notable but I'm not seeing the coverage of him himself that would justify keeping the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:55, 29 July 2017 (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.
- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Merrill Gay
- Merrill Gay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix ( talk) 04:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future mayoral election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, as the creator wrongly claimed when removing the prod notice a few hours ago: if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. But neither serving on a school board nor being executive director of a non-profit organization constitutes a notability freebie either: school board is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL at all, and the organizational work is referenced to the organization's own self-published content about itself, not to any reliable source coverage about his work in that role which would get him past WP:GNG for it. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, it's longstanding procedure here that merely being a candidate, even a favourite, is not alone sufficient grounds for notability. I don't see any other compelling reason why this person would quality for WP:BIO; he's involved with some entities that may be notable but I'm not seeing the coverage of him himself that would justify keeping the article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 00:55, 29 July 2017 (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.