- 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 Speedy deleted by author request, right here. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Robert Gangi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive or sourced claim of notability is being an as yet non-winning candidate in a party primary in a mayoral election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL in and of itself -- he would have to win the general election and become the actual mayor to claim notability on an NPOL basis -- but the article is not sourced well enough to demonstrate his candidacy as appreciably more notable than the norm for aspiring municipal politicians: of the six sources present here, four are just run of the mill campaign coverage no different from what any candidate for any political office could always expect to receive -- and of the two sources that actually predate his candidacy, he's the bylined author of one of them and not its subject, while the other one completely fails to even mention his name at all and is here only to source a completely tangential fact about the demographics of the neighbourhood he lives in. None of this is enough to get him a Wikipedia article just for competing in an election primary. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, which says it better than I could. Simply being in the primary for a notable position is not enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards. The sourcing that exists does not meet the general guideline found in WP:N either. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete concur with nom Cllgbksr ( talk) 21:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Concur. Every time I think I'm looking at the right guidelines page, there are more. Mehmuffin ( talk) 21:26, 8 August 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 Speedy deleted by author request, right here. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Robert Gangi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive or sourced claim of notability is being an as yet non-winning candidate in a party primary in a mayoral election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL in and of itself -- he would have to win the general election and become the actual mayor to claim notability on an NPOL basis -- but the article is not sourced well enough to demonstrate his candidacy as appreciably more notable than the norm for aspiring municipal politicians: of the six sources present here, four are just run of the mill campaign coverage no different from what any candidate for any political office could always expect to receive -- and of the two sources that actually predate his candidacy, he's the bylined author of one of them and not its subject, while the other one completely fails to even mention his name at all and is here only to source a completely tangential fact about the demographics of the neighbourhood he lives in. None of this is enough to get him a Wikipedia article just for competing in an election primary. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, which says it better than I could. Simply being in the primary for a notable position is not enough to be notable by Wikipedia standards. The sourcing that exists does not meet the general guideline found in WP:N either. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete concur with nom Cllgbksr ( talk) 21:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Concur. Every time I think I'm looking at the right guidelines page, there are more. Mehmuffin ( talk) 21:26, 8 August 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.