Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Bayes (2nd 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. The consensus is that the available sources do not provide the necessary in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and there was no support for the argument that running for national office establishes notability. Just Chilling (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Bill Bayes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy was declined due to the fact that he was nominated again by this marginally nominal party in 2020, which does nothing to further his WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a fringe party's candidate for president of the United States is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts the candidate from having to have solid sources to get him over WP:GNG — but three of the five sources here are from a non-notable WordPress blog, and the only reliable sourcing present at all is a couple of pieces of routine municipal election coverage in his hometown newspaper in the context of having been an unsuccessful candidate for city council, which is not enough in and of itself either. To be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, he would need to show a lot more nationalized media coverage, in the context of his presidential candidacy rather than the city council stuff, than this is showing. Even at the presidential level, getting nominated as a candidate is still not in and of itself an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to get covered by the media for it. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 as already deleted at AFD and nothing having really changed. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The question for any political candidate for the chief executive position in a country is whether the subject has solid sourcing to pass WP:GNG. As I write, the sourcing is not in the article, but there is a fair number of sources that exist that cover the subject, including this piece in the Guardian about the Prohibition Party, this profile in Mississippi Today, and this feature produced by WITF-FM. And unlike other commentators, I believe Ballot Access News is a notable website/newsletter. While I would agree that there may not be enough out there to write a featured article about the subject, there subject does meet WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of those three sources just glancingly namecheck Bayes' existence in the process of not being about him, and the one that is actually "about" him to any non-trivial degree still isn't about him enough to single-handedly vault him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only non-trivial "more than just a namecheck" source in play. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the sources do just namecheck Bayes' presence on the 2016 ticket. However, I think that being a presidential or vice presidential candidate on ticket that is on the general election ballot in multiple states (or on a federal ballot outside of the US), meets the definition of notability (under the spirit of WP:NPOL [and similar to any state-wide or province-wide elected legislator]) and as such, all we need is minimal sourcing that the person exists and holds the position. (And yes, this is different than the position I hold for unelected candidates below the presidential level).
 * There is nothing controversial about the content within the contested article. All of the information is properly sourced and there is some more information that could be added (from local and other notable news organizations/websites). By running for a national office, the individual has forgone being a low-profile individual. At minimum, the page should be redirected to Prohibition_Party as have other Prohibition Party Vice Presidential nominees. --Enos733 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. That is very slim argument. I can't see them getting more coverage as time passes. They are at the extreme fringe of political reality, really too far out for me. The fact they only had 5600 odd votes and that was in a good year. Very tenuous.  scope_creep Talk  21:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete name checking does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As already deleted at AFD and nothing having really changed. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Yup, does not pass WP:GNG. William2001(talk) 05:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.