Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hermanson

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) 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hermanson

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as someone who has run for, but not won, political office. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gets through on WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep as a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Perennial candidates don't get kept for being perennial candidates. They get kept if there's sufficient sourcing for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for political office do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for being candidates, not even the perennial kind. But there's no real WP:GNG claim here either — about half the references in the article are to primary sources that cannot assist GNG at all, and all but one of the remaining sources are local blogs and local alt-weeklies. Only one source here, East Bay Times, actually counts for anything at all toward meeting GNG — but one source can't carry GNG all by itself. Local coverage of local elections is routinely expected to exist, so an unelected candidate doesn't get to claim GNG on local election coverage alone — a candidate for office doesn't have a GNG argument until the coverage of them nationalizes. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable that meetings the WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find any third party reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Someone else has said passes, if they can provide those sources I'll flip.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:48, 25 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.