Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Levin

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Levin[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written as usual like a campaign brochure, of a person notable primarily as a not yet elected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that a person was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this makes no claim of preexisting notability, and is referenced to just two pieces of WP:ROUTINE local media coverage and his own self-published campaign website -- which is a depth and volume of sourceability that every candidate in every election everywhere could always show, so it's not enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of failing WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing stated or sourced here has already earned him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed the campaign brochure aspects of the article (the policy positions that reference his campaign website), making this less of a promo issue and more of a straightforward WP:TOOSOON case. Personally, I think he'll win, but he's not really notable unless he does. Elassint ^Hi 00:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of four serious contenders in this primary for an open seat, no previous notability that I can see. However, I believe that we need to give serious consideration to changing our guidelines to permit keeping articles on major contenders for open congressional seats.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Article mentioning his funding record in CA is maybe slightly more then WP:ROUTINE, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:09, 22 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.