Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Mack


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Joshua Mack

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contains an assertion of importance, so this isn't speediable under A7. Still, mayoral candidates don't warrant articles without exceptional news coverage and discussion, and this day-old campaign hasn't got it. &mdash;Kww(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a soapbox, billboard, etc. I did cut the article down to size, since in many ways it was not reflective of the standard of WP articles. Please look at the history for the earlier version. I promise you I didn't cut anything substantial. (By WP standards, that is.) Oh, I also restored the AfD tag that the author/subject had removed; that's bad manners. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, your blog, or your web host. This article is a load of crap. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. With all respect to the others who have commented, while mayoral candidates may not automatically acquire notability, if, in fact, this person is real, and if it turned out that he were to win the GOP nomination, then I would argue that that would confer notability on him, for the reasons stated in the article, even though he is only a candidate.  But right now it doesn't matter; I do agree that what we have here is not enough to meet WP:N.  Un  sch  ool  17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could not find any reliable sources through internet searches, and the text on the article provides no references to claims such as that his 'candidacy is historic', or even that the subject is running for the position.  Therefore, I would object on the grounds of WP:V, WP:N (especially that Wikipedia is not the place to establish notability), and WP:SOAP as well.  --Aka042 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Folks, let's not pile it on. Admin, please let it snow? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If he is elected, he can and will come back. However, the idea is for him to become notable so he can be added to Wikipedia, not the other way around. Rklear (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As a resident of Jackson, Mississippi, I have never heard of this young man nor have I seen him on our local news or covered in our The Clarion-Ledger newspaper. If he's a candidate, he's but 1 of about 15 different people now running for the Jackson mayoral job, many some pretty top dogs in local politics so he doesn't even stand an Obama's chance of winning this election. But if he does, then he's notable for an article - at that time, not now. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:05, 3 February 2009 (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.