Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McNutt

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) 19:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McNutt[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. reddogsix (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails to cite substantive sources, and the subject fails WP:TOOSOON. Note that while several sources establish who the article subject is, (most reference a connection to his families' fruit cake business) they do not cover the subject in depth beyond his candidacy, which by itself does not confer notability per WP:NOTE. Other sources that only contain adds for the candidate ([1]), are non third party ([2] [3]), or are standard press releases ([4]) should be discounted.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. My first idea was a redirect to Collin Street Bakery, which mentions McNutt. However, I think there's a high chance that would misdirect people who are actually looking for Thomas MacNutt. I appreciate the efforts Flatoncsi has gone to in an attempt to rescue this, but although there's a possibility the election itself meets our notability criteria, McNutt himself just does not. Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections — if you cannot show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides the fact of being a candidate, then he has to win the election and become an actual holder of political office, not just have his name on the ballot, to get an article for his political activities. But nothing here demonstrates that: all of the sources here are either primary source references to his own campaign literature, or local election coverage of the type that's routinely expected to exist for all elections, so nothing here demonstrates that his candidacy would somehow qualify as that exceedingly rare "notable because his candidacy exploded to garner a lot more coverage than normal" special case either. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 3 August 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.