Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estakio Beltran

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estakio Beltran

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

Poorly-sourced WP:BLP of a person "notable" only as a not-yet-elected candidate in a future election — which, as usual and ad nauseam, is not a claim of notability that passes WP:POLITICIAN. Under normal circumstances, a person must actually win the election to qualify for an article on Wikipedia — to get an article in advance of winning office, a politician must (a) have preexisting notability for other things that would get them past a different notability guideline, or (b) explode into a sustained national or international news story on the order of Christine O'Donnell. Neither of which has been demonstrated here. So he'll qualify for an article if he wins the election in November, but is not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Even if he makes one of the top two slots in the August primary, is not even a case of WP:TOOSOON as the district is rated "Safe Republican" by Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call, "2014 Election Race Ratings". --Bejnar (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for politicians. Most candidates are not notable, they need indepth, broad, significant coverage to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2014 (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.