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) 08:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Jesse Lee Thomas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Thomas's one true claim to notability is that he ran for US congress and lost. I actually created this article, and when I did, I was of the belief that such was enough to make a person notable. That may have even been the state of the guidelines when I created the article. However it is now clear that just running for congress is not enough to make someone notable, even as the holder of a major party nomination. I hate to see this article go, but the coverage from the Deseret News mentioning Thomas about 12 years before he ran for congress is just not enough for the article to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per G7 author request. Sounds OK. Blythwood ( talk) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Wikipedia's notability and sourcing requirements have evolved significantly in the last decade, so lots of things that were created in good faith at the time don't actually meet the inclusion standards that pertain today. I've frequently also self-nominated stuff that I created a decade ago under the standards that pertained at the time, but which couldn't actually be substanced or sourced up to the stricter standards that apply now. Bearcat ( talk) 15:05, 17 October 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.