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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommi Makila[edit]

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

I declined a speedy deletion request, which cited no credible claim of notability. The claim of notability appears to be that the subject will be a candidate in a state primary election in the USA.

I am putting the article up for discussion here with the expectation that it will fail general notability. Tóraí (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's announced candidature for a forthcoming state primary is not sufficient for WP:POLITICIAN criterion 3 and the other coverage is a mix of primary and passing mention which does not demonstrate WP:BASIC notability. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in still-pending party primaries — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he already cleared a notability criterion for some other reason, then he has to win the general election to clear WP:NPOL. But there's no other claim of preexisting notability here, and the sourcing is not marking him out as a special case who's somehow more notable than most other candidates in most other primaries. Nominator is correct that being a political candidate is enough of a claim of notability to preclude the speedy process — where any claim of notability at all, even one that would fail an AFD discussion, is still enough to make the article non-speediable — but they're also correct that it's not enough to actually make the article keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2018 (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.