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. RL0919 ( talk) 21:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Kirk McDonough (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Unelected and non notable figure. Mccapra ( talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. People do not get articles just for having been candidates in elections they did not win, but this is not demonstrating that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy: it states his role as the president of a short-lived defunct hockey league, but completely fails to show that he cleared WP:GNG for it by having had his work in that role written about in reliable source coverage. Rather, seven of the eight sources here are addressing his political activities, five of those are primary sources which are not support for notability at all while the other two are just local media offering general coverage of the election as a whole rather than devoting any attention specifically to McDonough himself, and the only source that has anything to do with hockey at all is another primary source offering technical self-published verification that he once held a different job short of his strongest potential notability claim. Literally none of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show a hell of a lot more reliable sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 16:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sources available do not support notability of any sort. Rockphed ( talk) 17:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete He is probably the most non-notable politican I have ever seen an article on, except that one guy who was a member of a neighborhood board. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 07:18, 22 September 2019 (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.