Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter J. Flood

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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Flood[edit]

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

As I stated in the PROD that was challenged by an IP, Flood fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. There is no significant/substantial coverage in independent sources; the CNN profile is just basic biographical data, not an article, and the Washington Post article barely discusses Flood. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article are very cursory and so he lacks depth of coverage even in the articles relating to WP:NPOLITICIAN. So he doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. T Knox490 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. there are many great Americans with impressive backgrounds serving our country. I salute them. However, very few meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. The Lieutenant, regrettably, does not. Dloh cierekim 03:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable because candidate per se. But this demonstrates no preexisting notability, and is not sourced to any substantive coverage about him to park a WP:GNG claim on. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Practically zero coverage in reliable sources. No coverage not related to his candidacy for office. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notiable. Unelected canidate. Coverage is non existed. Reb1981 (talk) 20:11, 26 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.