Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Sadowsky


 * 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 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Sadowsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Biography, based entirely on directory sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia if the sourcing is this weak. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Even if he had been a member of a major party Sadowsky would not be notable, as a member of the socialist party he clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Mr. Sadowsky does not have automatic notability under WP:POLITICIANS and I see nothing currently that would reach the general notability standards. Dolotta (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete He seems even less notable than the same-named inventor of a skating accessory whose sources came up in my search. Lourdes  10:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and all of the above. We have never kept such a sketchy stub. It is sourced merely with directories (albeit somewhat reliable in my book). This guy was not even a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 28 October 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.