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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fuhrig[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL in and of itself, but the sourcing here is nowhere near getting him over WP:GNG instead -- the article is based almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with just two pieces of actual reliable source coverage which both just namecheck his existence rather than being about him. None of this, neither the quality of sourcing nor the substance of what it's there to support, is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you please point out which ones are primary??? Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single thing not from the Los Angeles Times. Notability is not supported by the internal newsletters of his own political party; notability is not supported by an alumni obituary on the website of his own alma mater; notability is not supported by paid death notices; notability is not supported by a person's "our staff" profile on the website of his own employer or "our members" profile on the website of an organization he was directly affiliated with; notability is not supported by the press releases of a university that named a scholarship after him. It's supported by media coverage, media coverage, media coverage, media coverage and/or media coverage, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to being referenced in many books and having the Joseph Fuhrig Private Enterprise Scholarship named after him (not saying that makes him notable), he was a Libertarian governor candidate and well-known and has historical notability in Libertarian politics. Yes the article was hastily put together and needs improvement. Karl Twist (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with the sources are not that they are primary, although some are (e.g., birth record), but that they are not independent. Most come from sources close to the subject (school, university, party), etc. I can not find sufficient independent coverage to warrant a keep per WP:GNG and can not see how he qualifies for inherent notability (e.g., per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. I would be glad to be proved wrong. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sourcing includes non-independent sourcing (e.g. a person's staff profile on the website of their own employer is still a primary source even though it's technically on an affiliated website instead of their own personal website.) So "primary" and "not independent" are not actually mutually exclusive terminologies. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that they are. I am just less sure about the fact that they are primary than that they are non-independent. "Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit (and possible distortions) of hindsight are secondary". Most of the sources were written with the benefit of hindsight, although to what extent they rely on primary sources and not unpublished personal knowledge is tough to tell. However, that is not important here at all - primary or not, they are not independent and can not be used to establish the notability of the subject. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is sourced to a mix of routine coverage of an election, non-indepdent sources, and primary sources. Defeated gubenatorial candidates need a lot more coverage than we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. No indications of notability or significance and insufficient RS offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 7 October 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.