- 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) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Henry Sias ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only coverage appears to be about the election, which means this fails NPOLITICIAN. John from Idegon ( talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Entered subject's name in Google search and only found 3 articles, and they all relate to his run for office, no independent RS coverage of subject outside of that, fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr ( talk) 15:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NPOL, all coverage is local and related to his run for judge. Fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election to get an article because election per se. (And no, being the first transgender candidate for a statewide office is not, in and of itself, a notability boost over other unelected candidates either.) And five pieces of campaign coverage is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL either, as every candidate in any election could always show five pieces of local campaign coverage — so that just falls under WP:ROUTINE. And nothing claimed or sourced here shows any preexisting notability for anything either. Bearcat ( talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. He fails to meet
NPOLITICIAN. Running for political office does not bestow inherent notability. There are no reliable and independent sources that cover him in an indepth manner so he fails to meet
WP:GNG standards. If being a winning candidate does not mean automatic notability, certainly being a non-winning candidate does not convey automatic notability. And he is a non-winning candidate. I also agree with User: Bearcat that being the first transgender candidate for a statewide office is not something that causes someone to meet
WP: GNG.
desmay (
talk) 00:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the subject ran for a city/county office (they are the same in Philadelphia) not a state wide office. Which probably makes it even further from a notable case. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Even if elected the subject would not have been notable, holding a common pleas judgeship in a city is generally not enough to be notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: No evidence of notability. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:06, 1 May 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.