Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Berryhill


 * 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   no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike Berryhill

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Aside from WP:CRYSTAL that the individual may be notable in the future, no reliable sources establishing notability in the present or past. Strongly suggest deleting article and letting it return after the election circus is over; this is a pattern that has been used on other not-yet-notable individuals' pages. tedder (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's true that he is only a candidate and has not held office, but the sources provided in the article suggest that he has received enough coverage to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. Wikipedia sees lots of these types of articles come election time. Currently fails significant coverage in independent reliable sources necessary to pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. References #1 is a collection of stats, #2 and #3 are local election coverage (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS), and #4 is from the subject's website (i.e. not independent). Location (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * - comment - There was quite a bit of support to keep this similar situation Stephene_Moore, the rescue editors added some cites but its the same, same imo, they are neither as yet worthy of a wikipedia BLP, if they win the election they immediately do. If one is kept the other should be also kept and the long held situation that political candidates are not notable no matter how many mentions they get in the local or even a few national articles, should be changed if that does not apply any more. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons set out by the nominator, and it seems to be a hotbed for WP:BLP and WP:Battleground problems as well. EnabledDanger (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per my comments. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge (then redirect) to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010. My rationale is that the subject's present notability, such as it is, is tied to this his pursuit of this office. Mention him there, and of course, break out a full bio if he prevails. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:05, 24 September 2010 (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.