Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Weed (3rd nomination)

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Weed

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previously kept in the yonder-years of 2007, when our criteria for inclusion was far lower. Non-notable losing political candidate. A WP:BEFORE search on newspapers.com only revealed typical run-of-the-mill local election coverage (such as [1]), which is not sufficient; thus, with no WP:SIGCOV, the subject fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea that a major-party candidate in a congressional election is automatically notable enough for inclusion regardless of whether they win or lose, which is the basis on which this was kept in 2007, has long since been deprecated — in 2023, we have a much clearer standard that candidates are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles only if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy (e.g. holding another notable office, attaining passage of our inclusion criteria in another occupation), or (b) they can be sourced well enough to demonstrate a credible claim that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. This passes neither of those tests. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG for me, until more coverage or sources can be found, it should be deleted. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Virginia as a usual and appropriate outcome for unsuccessful candidates for the US House. --Enos733 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the article currently fails WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 14 February 2023 (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.