From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Cliff Hyra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability Mpen320 ( talk) 03:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The article List of third party performances in United States elections has numerous examples of candidates in statewide elections who exceeded 5% of the vote, but are not notable. Focus on Wyoming and Idaho especially. This applies to candidates of all third parties. It is also worth noting that he only exceeds 5% in two of the five polls listed in the article. Mpen320 ( talk) 04:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Un-elected candidate for public office who does not have any other claim to notability and does not meet the primary notability criterion.-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 18:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Just being a candidate for office does not make an individual notable. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being an as yet unelected candidate for political office is not a notability claim that gets somebody into Wikipedia in and of itself, polling above 5% is not a notability boost, and the article isn't referenced to even a fraction of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 06:35, 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.