Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerron Cross

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. Biblioworm 20:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerron Cross

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

Not notable enough - councillor, defeated parliamentary candidate, staffer to an Archbishop, but nothing that meets WP:GNG Frinton100 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because nothing here constitutes a notability claim that would grant an automatic pass under any of Wikipedia's inclusion standards — being a district councillor can satisfy WP:NPOL #3 if the article is well-sourced, but it's not a role that can confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every district councillor who exists at all if the sourcing isn't there. Of the sources here, however, two are deadlinked blogs that were never valid reliable sources in the first place, one is a still-live blog that still isn't a reliable source because it's still a blog, one is a deadlinked primary source, and one is his book's sales page on Amazon.com. There's only one reference here (#4) that counts for anything in the WP:GNG sweepstakes — but even that reference is just a blurb in a community newspaper, so it's neither substantive enough nor widely distributed enough to carry notability as an article's only source. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lost the election, his other positions are not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2015 (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.