Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrest Dunbar

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Dunbar[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)

There are several reasons in favor of this article's deletion...

There are almost zero sources beyond WP:ROUTINE/WP:MILL coverage for candidacies. Other than this one from a satire site, my (thorough) google search, filtering out candidacy-related articles, turned up with just about nothing.
Usually, members of city assemblies are not considered notable. There may be exceptions when it is a global city (which Anchorage is NOT). Debates like this can be found here, in which a failed U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska was not deemed notable though she served on the Lincoln city council. All of the people in Category:Anchorage Assembly members have other notable characteristics about them, including being members of the Alaska Legislature, serving as Anchorage Mayor, or being famous authors. Dunbar does not.
Even if all of the candidacy articles are counted, there is still not enough sources sufficient for WP:GNG as none are from national publications.

In light of these points, please consider voting DELETE on this article. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to meet GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anchorage is not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors just because of that role itself — while a person who happens to have been an Anchorage city councillor can still be notable for other reasons besides that, such as going on to serve in the state house or Congress, being a city councillor in Anchorage is not an article-clinching notability claim in its own right. Being an unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election, however, is not a claim that automatically makes a city councillor special either, and the referencing here isn't even close to enough to make him more notable than most other city councillors or most other unsuccessful congressional candidates. To be fair, I'll note that this was originally created as a redirect to the congressional election, and then got converted to a standalone article by a different user after the fact — so no prejudice against the recreation of a redirect after deletion if desired, but there's no need to retain the edit history here and a redirect from an unsuccessful candidate to their election is not actually mandatory in all cases. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely for the reason enunciated by Bearcat. City councilors don't have inherent notability and defeated congressional candidates don't either. In the absence of WP:NPOL notability, subject would need to meet the GNG. However, their only coverage is in relation to their offices (sought or held). Chetsford (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say that given how little coverage there is, regardless of whether or not it is WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE coverage on the candidacy, that Dunbar would not pass GNG. There are only 3 reliable sources, all of which are local and arguably just passing mentions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regarding point number 1 in the nomination above: he did, however, get a fair bit of coverage in a Politico article a year ago: politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/12/how-to-turn-red-state-blue-purple-alaska-politics-2018-216304 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleit Ḵaa (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, points 1 and 3 above. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough I did not find that article, however that is one reliable publication (that is also more than just a passing mention) outside of his candidacy. Usually I'd consider three to be sustainable for GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Candidate did not win , fails GNG Alex-h (talk) 08:53, 3 January 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.