Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Poekel


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Charles Poekel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office and as the author of a book. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per WP:NPOL, so his includability in Wikipedia depends entirely on the book -- but the sourcing here isn't remotely adequate to satisfy WP:CREATIVE: of the nine sources cited here, five of them get clobbered right off the top as primary or routine (a wedding announcement) sources that count for nothing toward GNG, and of the four sources which do represent actual media coverage, one is about the campaign, one is about his appointment to a local committee that cannot assist notability, one is about him presenting a paper at a symposium and just one source is actually about the book. But if "the book exists" is really all the notability you can claim for a writer, then it takes a lot more than one source to get him over the bar on that basis. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete minor unsuccesful politician. No real claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete with enthusiasm. VanEman (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim to significance. Suffering large defeats in elections does not make an individual notable. AusLondonder (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable as a politician nor as an author, with an amazon rank of 748,443, certainly not a popular title. Jacona (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2016 (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.