Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael B. Danaher

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) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael B. Danaher[edit]

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

Delete. Biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for office, which is sourced only to a single obituary in his hometown newspaper and to The Political Graveyard (which, regardless of any quibbles about whether it's a reliable source or not, is definitely not a source where inclusion confers automatic notability in and of itself.) There's simply not enough substance or enough sourcing here to make him notable. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I looked for more sources and found [1] which has a paragraph-length bio, but nothing in it seems to indicate to me anything that would pass notability. [2] has a photo if we end up keeping this. These do suggest the possibility there are better sources, so I'd be happy to be convinced - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was not even elected mayor of Luddington, that is how unnotable he was. Candidates for congress are not default notable, nor are delegates to a party's national convention.01:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment - this is a very marginal case. I'm not sure if we've ever kept a DNC delegate on that alone. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 20 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.