Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Berryhill (2nd nomination)

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) 23:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Berryhill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. The last AfD was over six years ago when his unsuccessful campaign for elected office was going on, but Wikipedia standards have tightened and the subject has not done anything that would make him notable under our current standards. Kurykh (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional article on an entirely non-notable candidate for office whose main claims to fame seems to be that his cousins hold elected office and he is a member of the "Turlock Irrigation District Board" AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2010 there was still some support (albeit wobbly support, as note the fact that the first discussion closed no consensus rather than as a clear keep) for the notion that unelected candidates in US congressional elections were notable enough for articles on that basis in and of itself. But that's since been much more cleanly discounted, so that non-winning candidates for political office are considered notable only if (a) they can be shown and properly sourced as having already cleared a notability criterion for some other reason before running as candidates, or (b) there's a WP:GNG slamdunk because the campaign coverage exploded into something resembling the firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell. Neither of those conditions has been satisfied here, however; the strongest claim of notability is serving on a local infrastructure board, which is not an NPOL pass, and the referencing is a mix of primary sources, purely routine local coverage of the type that any candidate for any office could always show, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him. This is nowhere close to what it takes to make a candidate notable because candidate. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 April 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.