Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Brandwood


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Brandwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable local councillor, see WP:POLOUTCOMES Gbawden (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete as WP:TOOSOON. This article reminded me of a Harvard student who made a flurry many years ago being the youngest legislator in New Hampshire, so I googled, he popped right up: . (he appears not to have won, to have been the youngest candidate merely, memory is fallible) Actually, a lot of "youngest elected" hits pop up in a quick search:, .  I say, more power to them.   However, looking at my news google search on Joshua Brandwood  persuades me that being the "youngest" elected is not the same as having enough notability to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only claim to notability is being the youngest ever councillor on a minor town council. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Youngest person ever to hold an otherwise non-notable office" is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — every single municipal council on this entire planet will always have had its own youngest-ever member, as well as the lingering possibility of a new even-younger member coming along in the future to outyouth the first one, so it's a total non-starter as evidence of encyclopedic notability in and of itself. And that goes double if you have to park the article entirely on primary source verification of his existence rather than reliable source coverage of his work. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 21 January 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.