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. Seems like notability is not established yet for this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Thillens (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)

Delete. Article, written like a campaign brochure as these things almost always are, about a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot credibly 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 collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All sources appear to be about his present candidacy too - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. I appreciate your comments. Can you please provide links to the Wikipedia policies that back up the statements you've both made:

• "if you cannot credibly 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 collect notability from the election itself" - Can you please cite and link to the Wikipedia policy that says a subject must win an elective seat before being notable for an article?
• "No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article today." Please see my notes below.
• "All sources appear to be about his present candidacy too" - Can you please cite and link to the Wikipedia policy that makes the state of being a candidate a disqualifying factor?

For the rules regarding a subject getting their own article (notability requirement): "Notability is the standard of whether a subject can have its own Wikipedia article." To be pass the Notability test: "If a topic has received significant coverage [two news articles] in reliable sources [newspapers are deemed reliable] that are independent of the subject [subject has no control or influence over these publications], it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

If my comments come across as harsh, it is unintended and I apologize. My intention is to be very specific here and to adhere to the WP policies as best as I can, while learning too.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:NPOL. Just being a candidate isn't enough in general. WP:POLOUTCOMES lists how politician articles tend to fare in deletion discussions. If he's had unusually more news coverage of his candidacy than the typical candidate, that might convince - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat and per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The article, in its current form, cites two local news articles about the subject's positions on issues (and another article that does not reference the subject. Previous AfD's have concluded that being a candidate for office is not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These discussions of candidates for elective office recognize that reliable sources cover the candidates only in the context of a single event, in this case, an electoral campaign (see WP:BLP1E). As WP:BIO1E states, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." From a practical perspective, articles on candidates for public office have the effect in turning Wikipedia into a campaign brochure, and containing information that is difficult to verify (see WP:V. Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Per POLOUTCOMES, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." She hasn't won or lost. The election is in November. Also, I appreciate your effort in your argument, but it read like a legal brief, citing arcane rules and regulations. Makes me think of the most basic Wikipedia rule called "Ignore all rules." It goes, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IGNORE. At any rate, whatever the community decides, I'll support. I'm just trying to learn.--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 18:52, 16 September 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.