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.
In regards to sources being local, one of the articles is by a national source (Independent Voter Network). In terms of him being a "fringe candidate," an attempt at changing the status quo in a race that is very closely watched by the media should be notable due to the very unique and non-traditional jab at the two-party system.
Vote4fraser (
talk)
06:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." ... Two articles featuring him were cited.
Vote4fraser (
talk)
06:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Independent Voter Network is not media, but an organization with which the article subject has a direct affiliation — so it doesn't contribute notability points, because it's PR in a
primary source. And the only thing here that actually counts as a newspaper article is blown out of the water by the fact that it's a newspaper article in the local newspaper covering his own hometown, so it constitutes
WP:ROUTINE coverage. All candidates for all political offices always get a few articles about them in their local newspaper, so that coverage can't help boost a candidate's notability either. If he somehow reached the point where his candidacy was getting coverage in The New York Times or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Miami Herald, then there'd be a case for
WP:GNG inclusion because coverage — but a local newspaper covering local politics doesn't get a local candidate over the bar.
Bearcat (
talk)
09:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. And the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat, a Republican, a Green or an independent, so it's not a bias issue. But the sourcing here is five-sixths
primary sources and one-sixth
WP:ROUTINE local coverage, of the kind that all candidates always get, in the local media — so it doesn't get him over
WP:GNG in lieu of
WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the seat, but until then it's
WP:TOOSOON.
Bearcat (
talk)
09:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Per above. If this candidate doesn't get elected, then all his notability will be based around
one event. To use an example of a candidate who lost in my local area --
Rowenna Davis, then she has survived on Wikipedia because she has published books that have gained her some level of notability. Unfortunately, there is nothing of the sort here.
Mynameisnotdave (
talk/
contribs)
10:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:POLITICIAN: Notability attaches to office-holders, not those who just run. (And it's worth pointing out that Fraser hasn't even qualified for a ballot yet, let alone won elected office.) No other notability that would qualify under
WP:BIO or
WP:GNG; I can't find any non-local coverage by sources independent of the subject. --
Closeapple (
talk)
17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for the simple reason that insufficient reliable, independent coverage of this man exists to support notability. And he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:59, 18 February 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.