- 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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 04:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Jarred Cannon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, failed political candidate. Creator feels ot meets WP:GNG, but sources are not any more than for any unsuccessful candidate. Seems to be self-promotional. Boleyn ( talk) 14:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doesn't meet basic notability guidelines, let alone those specific to a politician. Created by COI account who also contributed this non-controversy to the bio of an elected official: [1]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe as a "pre-candidate" he's "pre-notable"--that is, notable outside of mainspace. Delete. Drmies ( talk) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG as per nom. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-winning candidates in party primaries do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL: if a person was not already notable enough for an article for some other reason before being a candidate in an election, then they have to win the election (and I mean the general, not just the primary) to get an article because election per se. Our job is to keep articles about officeholders, not everybody who ever ran and lost. And as for his getting over WP:GNG, all I see here is entirely WP:ROUTINE coverage not even slightly different from what every candidate in any election always gets: apart from his answers to a strictly pro forma "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that the local newspaper gave to every candidate, this is otherwise based entirely on raw tables of vote totals and candidate lists. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to demonstrate his candidacy as somehow special compared to every other non-winning candidate in his or any other election. And for added bonus there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by "TheCannon410" — COI isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, certainly, but it does confirm that the core intent here was self-promotion rather than encyclopedia-building. Bearcat ( talk) 17:25, 28 June 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.