Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Earl Williams III


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

David Earl Williams III

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate for office. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election -- if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for an article independently of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough -- Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign brochures. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins his seat. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a public figure the page of David earl Williams III should not be deleted as he is a candidate for and known figure. He has been involved in 2 federal congressional races as all proper citations are in place to prove so. Willywill3x (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOL. "Involved in congressional races" does not get a person a Wikipedia article in and of itself — unless you can show that they were already eligible for a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate, they do not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat. We are not a free public relations platform for unelected candidates (or unsigned musicians, or unpublished authors, etc.) who are looking to increase their visibility; we are an encyclopedia, on which a person does not get to have an article until after a valid notability claim has already been met. And also, you do not get to erase other people's comments from this discussion, or remove the AFD template from the article. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. People can't "public figure" themselves into notability.  WP:POLITICIAN points out that merely ending up as an "elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".  The subject would have to meet the main Notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".  The kind of routine coverage that sources provide almost automatically to anyone qualifying for a ballot does not normally get a biography over the Notability hump.  I've found a couple more sources, but I don't think that's enough:
 * &mdash; might be considered substantial coverage. (WP:BLP warning: I can't figure out if the claims actually have any substance.  I can't find any follow-up article to that, and can't find it in the DC Courts case system.)
 * &mdash; local-focused, and more procedural than biographical; there was also a follow-up article in 2016, once he was disqualified
 * --Closeapple (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POLITICIAN exists for articles like this. To make matters worse, the US-led invasion of Iraq is given some PR treatment in the opening sentence to become the "Iraqi freedom war". Give me strength. AusLondonder (talk) 20:37, 10 March 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.