Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Leonard Smith


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

N. Leonard Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local politician, unsuccessful senate candidate, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither being a third party candidate in an election nor being a county-level legislator passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neither holding local political office nor being an unsuccessful candidate for higher office constitutes a guaranteed inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over the bar. To be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, a person at these levels of political significance would have to either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (e.g. clearing our inclusion criteria in another field of endeavour), or (b) be referenceable to a depth and range and volume of coverage that expanded significantly beyond what's merely expected to exist for all county councillors and all unsuccessful congressional candidates. That's not what these references show, however: four of the five footnotes are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and the only one that's actual media coverage is a routine obituary in a small community weekly — which is not enough coverage to get somebody over WP:GNG all by itself if he has no notability claims that would pass any SNGs. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 April 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.