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) 16:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL and sources are not strong enough to show he meets WP:GNG looks like a soapbox article created to support an election bid Dom from Paris ( talk) 08:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 08:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 08:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Neither being village president in a small town nor being a non-winning candidate in a still-upcoming congressional election is an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but there's not nearly enough proper reliable sourcing here to suggest that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. Almost half of the 11 footnotes are to primary sources, such as his own campaign website and the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, which are not notability-supporting sources — and while the other half is real media coverage, it's all local media coverage of the volume and range and depth that's merely expected to exist for all smalltown mayors and all aspiring House of Representatives candidates anywhere. So they do not constitute credible evidence that he's a special case over and above everybody else who's done the same things without getting a Wikipedia article for them: at these levels of significance, a person has to be demonstrably more notable than most other people at the same level, such as by having a significantly nationalized coverage profile. Obviously he'll qualify to have the article recreated if he wins the congressional seat in November, but nothing here already gets him over the notability bar today. Bearcat ( talk) 15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete being a candidate in a congressional election is not a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete for all the reasons given above. And update: he lost in the primary. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 04:33, 21 March 2018 (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.