Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Leib


 * 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  10:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Bryan Leib

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG (1."significant coverage" 2."reliable" sources 3. "secondary sources" "independent of the subject") and WP:POLITICIAN ("Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline").

Majority of page based on passing mentions and sources that are not independent of the subject (op-eds, speaker bureau bio, and other WP:PROMO fluff). Loksmythe (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this article does not demonstrate that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, and it is not reliably sourced to anything like the depth or volume of coverage it would take to make his candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete his role as a commentator and activist is not enough to show notability. Being a candidate for US congress is never enough to make someone notable. A few (very few, there are roughly 33 candidates every 2 years, and if 1 non-winner is notable as a candidate it is rare) US senate candidates are notable for such, but I am going to state that there is no US house candidate who is notable just for that, although several are notable because of other political positions they have held. There are over 10 times as many US house candidates in theory each election. In practice every or virtually every senate seat is contested, although a few contestants are long shots, but in the House a large number of seats do not have a major party opposition candidate. Still, being a candidate for US house is not a sign of notablity. We need something else, and nothing else here is enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per John Pack Lambert's thoro analysis. ——  Serial  07:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear failer of notability. Sonofstar (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2021 (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.