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. MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Fraser[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:Politician or WP:BIO. Independent candidate, not yet elected to any office, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just the small amount of local coverage that any candidate for national office would receive. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are admirable goals, but he's not even certain to be on the ballot. Blythwood (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to sources being local, one of the articles is by a national source (Independent Voter Network). In terms of him being a "fringe candidate," an attempt at changing the status quo in a race that is very closely watched by the media should be notable due to the very unique and non-traditional jab at the two-party system. Vote4fraser (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." ... Two articles featuring him were cited. Vote4fraser (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Voter Network is not media, but an organization with which the article subject has a direct affiliation — so it doesn't contribute notability points, because it's PR in a primary source. And the only thing here that actually counts as a newspaper article is blown out of the water by the fact that it's a newspaper article in the local newspaper covering his own hometown, so it constitutes WP:ROUTINE coverage. All candidates for all political offices always get a few articles about them in their local newspaper, so that coverage can't help boost a candidate's notability either. If he somehow reached the point where his candidacy was getting coverage in The New York Times or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Miami Herald, then there'd be a case for WP:GNG inclusion because coverage — but a local newspaper covering local politics doesn't get a local candidate over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. And the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat, a Republican, a Green or an independent, so it's not a bias issue. But the sourcing here is five-sixths primary sources and one-sixth WP:ROUTINE local coverage, of the kind that all candidates always get, in the local media — so it doesn't get him over WP:GNG in lieu of WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the seat, but until then it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. If this candidate doesn't get elected, then all his notability will be based around one event. To use an example of a candidate who lost in my local area -- Rowenna Davis, then she has survived on Wikipedia because she has published books that have gained her some level of notability. Unfortunately, there is nothing of the sort here. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 10:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN: Notability attaches to office-holders, not those who just run. (And it's worth pointing out that Fraser hasn't even qualified for a ballot yet, let alone won elected office.) No other notability that would qualify under WP:BIO or WP:GNG; I can't find any non-local coverage by sources independent of the subject. --Closeapple (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vote4fraser (talk · contribs) has been blocked because of the username, so can't respond until they make a new username or get their old one changed. I've left a message about Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Fraser.jpg on User talk:Vote4fraser in case the account still has access over there. --Closeapple (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simple reason that insufficient reliable, independent coverage of this man exists to support notability. And he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 18 February 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.