Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl W. Perry


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Darryl W. Perry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. There are no independent sources covering this person. TM 14:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TM 14:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. State party chair won't get you there. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too soon. There are, in fact, independent sources covering this fellow those are just a few, but the coverage is very routine. If he makes it onto the general election ballot for governor of New Hampshire, I think a redirect to Libertarian Party of New Hampshire might then be appropriate, or if that article at some point in the future adds a reliably sourced list of party chairs, but at the present, a redirect doesn't make sense.Jahaza (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Jahaza that the coverage is too routine and/or trival to satisfy WP:GNG. However, I think a redirect to 2016 Libertarian National Convention would be in order, as Perry was a candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination.Sal2100 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete little more than routine coverage. Fails WP:NPOL as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being state-level party of a minor political party is not a free pass over WP:NPOL that would exempt a person from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing — but this article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all. (For instance, a person is not notable as a journalist just because you can "cite" pieces of his bylined coverage about other things — he becomes notable as a journalist if and when his work as a journalist has been the subject of coverage written by other people.) Literally the only footnote here that represents a reliable source at all, further, is still not about him in any substantive way; it just briefly quotes him as a giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else, and thus is not a notability-assisting source either. To be notable for this, he would have to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that there are sources, they're just not in the article. But the coverage is largely routine, which is why I don't support an article now.Jahaza (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2020 (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.