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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams (Virginia)[edit]

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

Unelected politician, not a GNG pass independently of political activity. Effectively a campaign biography for a forthcoming electoral race. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected politicians are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — but all of the media coverage here is directly campaign-related, which means there's no evidence that he would have cleared a Wikipedia notability standard for any other reason independent of his candidacy. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the election — but there's no evidence here that he passes any notability standard right now. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; strongest argument for notability is that he's a still-unelected candidate for a statewide office; and that's not enough. TJRC (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. Meets WP:GNG with multiple in-depth profiles: Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Fairfax Times, WRIC, etc. Instaurare (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign-related coverage doesn't help get a candidate over WP:GNG in and of itself — if it did, then every candidate for anything would always pass GNG, because every candidate for anything always gets some campaign coverage. To get him an article before he wins the election, you would have to show that he had already received enough media coverage to clear GNG for other reasons completely independent of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. The standard for evaluating an un-elected candidate for a state-wide office is WP:NPOL and while the race for Attorney General may be notable, the candidates may not necessarily be per WP:BLP1E (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the title of article is not suitable due to the title should write for example John Adams (his career) but was written by name of town.Mr.ref (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone here; it's clear based on discussion at WP:VPP there's a consensus against keeping articles on candidates whose primary claim of notability is being a candidate in a down-ballot state-level race. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:56, 6 September 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.