Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter eikenberry

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter eikenberry[edit]

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

Fails NPOL and GNG. Only one source cited (to PRIMARY), a further search finds only two minor mentions in RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the simplest standards to establish notability WP:GNG Cllgbksr (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:NPOL. Also fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he gets over a notability criterion for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election per se. While there are claims here (vice-president of the federal bar council) that could get him past our notability standards for lawyers if they were properly sourced and expanded upon with more substance, the only reference here is his own primary source profile on the website of his own law firm. Nothing here entitles him to an article in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, and there's little to no easily locatable evidence of the depth of reliable sourcing needed to get him over the bar either. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unnotable politician. It is not 100% clear if he was running for the state of US house, but either way a failing candidate is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 30 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.