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. A clear consensus for deletion has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Creed (edit | 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:BIO on WP:TOOSOON grounds, and appears to lack WP:A7 and WP:GNG anchors, which results in a puff promo piece. Editor wants the article back though so I'm game. Its in the community's hands now... TomStar81 (Talk) 08:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a candidate, he's not notable, since he has yet to win office. No other basis for notability. agtx 20:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He has announced as a candidate for the LA City Council. The election he is running in is not until 2017. It is too soon to know if he will even be on the balot come next November, and he would have to win to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a candidate is not enough to be notable. No other basis for notability. No references from reputable sources about anything but the election. (COI notice: I met Jesse Creed at a recent event, and I know his main opponent. I have not taken a position in the race and do not live in the district.) RichardMathews (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While Los Angeles is obviously large enough a city that he'll qualify for an article if he wins his city council seat, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a forthcoming election — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable on the basis of the candidacy. No prejudice against recreation next year if he wins the seat, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, I agree with Bearcat here. Winning would probably make him notable, but at the moment, no. The coverage is routine coverage, which is expected during elections in the US and notability has to be demonstrated independent of simply contesting an election. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 18 November 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.