Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Ruiz III

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ruiz III[edit]

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

Article on failed political candidate fails NPOL. While there are limited RS they directly related to his past elections. No other notability. Has several self-published e-books. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this as written is not building a credible case that he would get over our notability standards for any of his other work — all of that stuff is referenced entirely to primary sources, except for one irrelevant newspaper citation that's here only to support the birth and death dates of another tangentially-connected person while failing to even mention Ruiz at all. The reliable sources here are entirely in the context of his candidacy itself — but that's just routine local election coverage of the type that every candidate in any election could always show, and does not demonstrate that his candidacy meets the rarefied standard necessary to be considered more notable than the norm. Furthermore, the article was created by a user named "NRIII", meaning it's an WP:AUTOBIO — and even if he were notable enough for an article, the path to getting one does not pass through writing it himself. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites on GS are minuscule. Too small to pass WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 23 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.