Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Molesevich


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Mike Molesevich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I still confirm my PROD which was removed by a new user with the basis that he should not be considered unacceptable for an article simply because he has not yet assumed office, but I also noted other explanations with my PROD, there's simply nothing better. SwisterTwister  talk  03:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article under some other criterion before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election and thereby holds a notable office. But the professional career claims here are stacked entirely onto his company's own self-published content about itself, and the only other thing claimed is that he served as mayor of a small town which at just 5K is not large enough to hand its mayors notability under NPOL #2 — which means he has not been demonstrated as passing any other notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing claimed or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete If the political career takes off, then it would be time to create an article. Otherwise this is promo material on a non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected politicians are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Allow A candidate for national office under one of the two main parties is going to receive hundreds of thousands of votes by default, and is therefore noticeable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry. The option is to limit people's ability to research and evaluate the only option to the incumbent candidate. An entry regarding a congressional candidate of the prominence of Molesevich is not only relevant to the public, but essential for democracy to function. Eric Boden (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not acceptable for the applicable notability because only office holders are acceptable; attention is not convincing for a keepable article because every politician campaigning for office may get attention, but certainly not all of them are going to actually assume that office. SwisterTwister   talk  15:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Our role here is not to help the voters decide who they should vote for by hosting campaign brochures. Our role begins and ends at covering the people who actually hold notable offices, not everybody who ever stood as a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails GNG and fails NPOL. If and when the subject gets elected, I have no problem having an article. But at this time, with sparse coverage in reliable sources, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also have concerns about WP:PROMO here btw. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 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.