Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branko Radulovacki

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Radulovacki[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sources cited do not suggest significant coverage of the subject. They include, among other dubious pieces, his LinkedIn page. Candidates for office who lose do not meet NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprised to find this bit from The New York Times in 1985 wasn't mentioned in the article, given its unseemly willingness to cite anything at all: [1]. Bakazaka (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not clear WP:NPOL just for being candidates — to be notable enough for an article, he would need to be shown as either (a) having had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon is not losing her article just because she lost when she ran for political office, because she was already notable as an actress), or (b) having received so much more coverage than every candidate in every election always gets that he's got a credible claim to being a special case. This clears neither of those bars: it depends far too heavily on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the stuff that is actually real media is mostly not about him — it comprises glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in (or the bylined author of) coverage of other things or people, or completely tangential verification of stray facts that doesn't even mention his name at all in conjunction with them. (Never mind the one source that's headlined "Meet 'Dr. Rad,' the first Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Georgia" in our footnote, but actually leads to an article whose actual headline is "#Clusterfest: Show us your pics".) Which leaves us with just a small smattering of campaign coverage not even slightly different than what every candidate can always show, which is not how you make a candidate notable enough for an article. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject did not win the 2014 Democratic Party nomination for the US Senate. Fails WP:NPOL as a non-winning candidate. --Enos733 (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2019 (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.