Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Fannon

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. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Fannon[edit]

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

Poorly sourced (relying entirely on namechecks in coverage of other things, with no substantive coverage of him as a topic in his own right) WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party. There was once a time when Wikipedia accepted this as a claim of notability, but consensus changed and this no longer satisfies WP:NPOL in and of itself — if you cannot make a more substantive claim alongside it, such as actually holding a seat in a legislature, then simply running for the leadership doesn't cut it anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, no other claim of notability in the article, three of the four refs are dead links, the other is a primary source, coverage is mostly local, and routine for unelected candidates, fails also WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although News and Highbeam particularly found results, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 24 September 2015 (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.