Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Dodge (Illinois)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dodge (Illinois)[edit]

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

DELETE. Politician of local significance do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements on their own. Upon review, Jim Dodge does not meet any other notablity criteria. Thus, I am nominating the article for deletion (Revised--Mpen320 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

delete Unsuccessful candidate; all sources appear to be coverage of these campaigns. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable unsuccessful candidate, does not otherwise pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being municipal councillors in small towns, and neither do they get Wikipedia articles for being unsuccessful candidates for NPOL-passing offices: candidates are deemed notable enough for Wikipedia articles only if they were already notable enough for Wikipedia articles for other reasons independent of their candidacy itself, and smalltown municipal councillors are deemed notable enough for Wikipedia articles only if they can make a credible claim to being a special case who's significantly more notable than most other smalltown municipal councillors. But this article demonstrates neither of those conditions. I also have some concerns about source-fakery here: one of the citations here is to The Globe and Mail, a newspaper in Canada which is profoundly unlikely to be covering candidacies in US state comptroller general primaries at all — but the link 404s, so I ran a ProQuest search and found neither hide nor hair of it existing there either. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are routine coverage of his two political campaigns. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 23 April 2018 (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.