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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Political candidate of no apparent note, no sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Comments on the page admit it was written as a promotional piece by a campaign staffer to "establish his legitimacy." A7 was declined but this clearly is, at best, WP:TOOSOON pending the election. JamesG5 ( talk) 22:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete - I think TOOSOON is accurate here. In the future, this topic might make the grade, but for now, and as it is right now, it fails POLITICIAN. South Nashua ( talk) 13:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Candidates for office do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. And one piece of routine coverage verifying the fact of his candidacy is not a WP:GNG pass in and of itself, either, because every candidate in any election could always show that. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete GNG. Bearcat's argument is very apt, and I agree with the last part strongly. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:35, 11 August 2017 (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.