Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Palzewicz

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Palzewicz[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate for Congress. References are all for his announcement to seek office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. article created by paid contributor. reddogsix (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed as passing WP:NPOL, and other than that the only other paths for a candidate to get into Wikipedia are (a) to show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or (b) to show and properly source that his candidacy is so much more notable than most other people's candidacies that he can credibly claim his candidacy to be a special case. (The textbook example here is Christine O'Donnell, who exploded to such a wild volume of nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is actually at least twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual senator she lost to.) The existence of a bit of local coverage in the candidate's own district's own local media is not enough to deem a candidate notable, because no candidate in any election anywhere ever fails to have that. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day in November if he wins the seat, but nothing stated or sourced here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per nom. If and when he wins, someone can recreate the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above - nominated only. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- Dane ^talk 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article does not satisfy WP:NPOL, non-notable candidate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:02, 30 March 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.