Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Brouillet


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Carol Brouillet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BASIC. Kurykh (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a continually trounced candidate for a minor party. The article is border-line promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Entirely non-notable political candidate and conspiracy theorist. AusLondonder (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - coverage is mostly local in nature and/or just a passing mention. typical stuff for a minor-party candidate. nothing notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that she already cleared another notability criterion for another reason, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable because election per se. But this is based almost entirely on primary sources, but for a small smattering of purely local and WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage of the depth and breadth that every unelected candidate for any office could always show — so nothing here demonstrates preexisting notability for other things, and nothing here shows her candidacies to be more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   23:47, 20 April 2017 (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.