Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duf Sundheim


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Duf Sundheim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks significant coverage. A majority of the references are about the 2016 United States Senate election in California. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Failed candidate, party position is not auto-notable, local coverage. WP:TOOSOON at best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither being state-level chair of a political party nor being a non-winning candidate in an election primary constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: eight of the 11 references are not support for notability at all, comprising raw tables of election results and a letter to the editor from a non-notable voter and his own self-published campaign advertisement on YouTube — and the three that actually qualify as reliable source coverage are covering him in the not-inherently notable contexts, so that doesn't represent enough coverage all by itself. GNG is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into any newspaper two or more times for any reason whatsoever" — it also tests for the context of what the person is getting coverage for. For example, every candidate in an election primary is always going to get coverage in that context — so coverage that exists specifically in the context of an election primary does not instantly make him more notable than every other candidate in the primary. Which means that "Moderate is state GOP's chief booster" is the only citation here that's actually speaking to his potential notability at all, and that's not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2019 (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.