Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D. Protack (3rd nomination)

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) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Protack

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

Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in party primaries and county council elections. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he passed another notability criterion for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win election to a notable office, not just run for it and lose, to get an article because of his political activities themselves. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe if he had won the party nomination for governor he would be notable, but he lost that. He is an unelected candidate who has not even secured any promenint nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Note: The article was deleted in the 2nd afd but was put up again.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that discussion took place in 2007 and this version of the article includes new things that happened after 2007. Those new things still don't actually pass an inclusion criterion, but we can't just speedy this since it does contain new claims not present in the 2007 edition. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:55, 23 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.