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. While the existence of many articles about the subject was claimed, none were produced. So Why 10:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Bill Bayes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I'm not convinced he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage, not an elected politician. Boleyn ( talk) 17:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep – he was VP nominee of Prohibition Party which, while it admittedly isn't a major party these days, it was a historical force in U.S. politics. There are many articles about him as well. MB298 ( talk) 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• For me this is on the cusp of notability. An alternative might be a separate subarticle summarising every Prohibition Party candidate for president and VP, or breaking out the Electoral history section (merging similar details about every VP to Prohibition Party would produce a very long article). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Personally, I think this article should remain. Bayes is obviously a minuscule political figure, however I think his campaign for both the Prohibition and Constitution parties in 2020 (if he continues to pursue them) should be noted. Of course, the election is still very far away, but he has already been included in the United States presidential election, 2020 page. Also, I think that since Jim Hedges, Bayes' running mate has a page, he should be entitled to one as well. - Polopolus ( talk) 10:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keeping or deleting should not be based on personal preference, but based on sources and Wikipedia policy. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. While being the vice-presidential nominee of a minor party can get a person into Wikipedia if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to have an article regardless of his sourceability or lack thereof. But the referencing here isn't cutting it at all: this is referenced almost entirely to primary (his biography on the party's own self-published website about itself, and ourcampaigns.com) and unreliable sources (three WordPress blogs and Newsmax), and the only two references that count as reliable sources at all are purely routine local coverage in the context of him running for and losing a city council seat. This is not even close to the kind of sourcing that it takes to get a person over GNG — it's so far away from the kind of sourcing it takes that it isn't even in the same galaxy as GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 06:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is nothing close to enough sourcing to show notability. Being the candidate for an unnoticed party that does not appear on most state ballots is not enough for notability. If the Prohibition Party had been on the Michigan ballot, I think I would have voted for Bayes. I did not like any significant candidates on the ballot, but as I said, these things are not based on what we like, and we should not keep articles based on personal preference. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per nom. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Represents a minor political party, this is not enough for notability. The sources are not there for GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:18, 18 September 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.