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. Michig ( talk) 07:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric Hafner (  | 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 politician with very few reliable sources provided. Tinton5 ( talk) 06:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as I still my confirm my removed PROD, still nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• DELETE: Sources confirm that he is a candidate, and 2 sources outline his positions. NOTE I've requested input here about the extent to which those position declaration interviews count towards GNG, as we're likely to see many similar in the next few months. Crow ^Caw 14:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Since all candidates in any given election get offered those kinds of interviews or surveys to articulate their positions on the election issues, those don't assist in conferring notability as such. Bearcat ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Hafner is a candidate for a nomination. If he wins the election he will be notable, until then he is not. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Candidates in primaries do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the election itself. But nothing here demonstrates that at all — the sourcing is purely WP:ROUTINE election coverage of the type that all candidates always get. Bearcat ( talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (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.