Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cammarano

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cammarano[edit]

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

Non-notable. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then the mere fact of being a candidate is not enough in and of itself. For added bonus, this is written very much more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and the only reference that's actually present in the article is a press release from his own campaign staff. But even an actual incumbent officeholder who does clear NPOL still doesn't get to source the article that way. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting relevent requirements. If no actual sourcing on page, susceptible to BLPProD. First read inclines me to tag for WP:CSD#G11. Bearcat makes salient points. I did not see the sourcing Bearcat mentions. Dloh cierekim 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to have been a point, between my comment and now, when the reference that is present in the article briefly disappeared due to a formatting error, but that got corrected and it's visible again (there are also two other reference tags being called at various places in the article, but empty ones that don't actually cite an actual reference for anything.) But the one visible reference is still a press release from his own campaign, not independent coverage verifying anything that would count as a notability claim at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if Cammarano is elected to the judgeship he seeks, it is unclear that that would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 1 May 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.