Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darcy Richardson

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. ✗plicit 02:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Richardson

[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)

Does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL, or WP:NAUTHOR. Many of the citations are links to the Alliance Party website, routine campaign coverage, passing mentions, and unreliable sources. No significant individual notability established. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see coverage on google news like [1] [2][3][4][5][6]. It should pass for GNG. TheChronium 14:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- TheChronium, those only mention Richardson in passing, except for two unreliable sources you've included. Articles need to be primarily about him for the purposes of establishing notability. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after some effort, I simply could not find any reliable sources that give him any significant coverage for anything other than his Florida gubernatorial run, which means he fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually expected this to be a keep reading the article, but the sources aren't there to support it - most of the references aren't substantial (including the LA Times one, where he's briefly interviewed as a candidate who has no chance of winning) or are to publications we wouldn't count as reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage in sources to argue that the subject meets WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2021 (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.