Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harmer

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. Joyous! | Talk 02:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Harmer[edit]

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

Harmer was a candidate for US house who lost in a 2009 special election and a 2010 general election, as well as in a different place in a 1996 primary. Being a candidate for US house is not alone enough to make someone notable, and the coverage is all routine for a candidate for congress, nothing exceptional. There is the point he was chief of staff to a member of congress for one term, but this is not a position that default makes someone notable, and we have no indication that Harmer is an exception in this matter. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no strong claim of notability for anything more than being a non-winning candidate for political office, and no strong sourcing to pass WP:GNG: of the nine sources here, five are primary sources such as his own website, raw tables of election results and a Google Books copy of a book he wrote, while the four that are reliable sources are WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the election campaign itself. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a non-winning candidate for political office into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 2 December 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.