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. Jenks24 ( talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Alex Merced (  | 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 political candidate. Does not have sufficient in depth coverage for WP:GNG and hasn't held a major political office so fails WP:POLITICIAN. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 06:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 06:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 06:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete 3rd party candidates in the US, except maybe ones running for president, are almost never notable for such alone, and nothing else he has done shows notability. Even major party senate candidates are not automatically notable, they need to either have previous notability (which a lot do because they have served in congress, state legislatures or as governor), or they need to get more than routine levels of coverage (which for senate cnadidates of major parties normally exists, since there are only about 32 races every 2 years, while the house has over 400 races every 2 years, although some lack major party candidates.) Nothing about Merced suggests he is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a notable person per WP:NPOL. No other claim to notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get articles because candidate per se — they can clear the bar if they can be shown and sourced as having already been notable enough for an article for the work they were doing before they became a candidate, but if you're going for "notable because election campaign" then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article on that basis. But this shows no preexisting notability at all, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources — and the amount of reliable source coverage actually present here isn't even in the same time zone as a WP:GNG claim. Bearcat ( talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (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.