Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Grant (American Politician)

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. Sandstein 07:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grant (American Politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON at best. Main edits by 2 WP:SPAs with similar names. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections — and that's doubly true if the election is a year and a half away, so as of today he hasn't even won the party primary yet. If you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability from the election itself. Every candidate in every election always generates some campaign coverage, so just being able to show a handful of that does not get him over WP:GNG all by itself — but the only references here that fall outside that bucket are his own self-published résumé on LinkedIn, and a magazine article in which he's not the subject but the bylined author. These are not sources that assist notability at all. Plus this is quite blatantly written like a promotional campaign brochure, not a neutral encyclopedia article. So no prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the seat, but as of right now nothing written or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for the US house are not notable for this alone. Nothing else about him bases notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep combat veteran of two theaters of conflict, former Chief of North Korea Plans, Strategy and Future's Team, co-founding member and former Director of U.S. State Department's Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism Office and related policy contributor, current CEO of Northern California World Trade Center, ... Bbbounds (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All impressive, but none of those posts amount to inherent notability. Where is the coverage required (see WP:BLPSOURCES). And bbbounds, are you connected to the subject? And to the creator of the article, Jordanbounds? Both have bounds in the name plus have only edited regarding this article. The article is also written in a promotional way with a PR photo. Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked my college daughter to help me with my first Wiki post, hence the same name. I once worked in the same company as Grant but different departments, hence my interest in posting. I've added linkable sources to Naval Academy varsity letters, national triathlon ranking, weapons of mass destruction office speeches, etc., hopefully improving on what you contributors are communicating. Thank you. Bbbounds (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly none of those things are notability claims that would exempt a person from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage for those things. But that's not what's being shown: what's being shown for those assertions is primary sources, not reliable ones, while the reliable source coverage is sitting entirely on the non-winning candidacy for office. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is not deleted, it needs (a) to be moved to ".... (American politician)" (small "p"), and (b) have the numerous "Andrew"s replaced by "Grant" to comply with encyclopedic style. PamD 22:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and followed your instructions PamD. Bbbounds (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet notability for biographies and reads like a campaign ad. As an unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL. Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2017 (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.