Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick LeBlanc


 * 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) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Patrick LeBlanc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Horribly sourced. Fails WP:GNG and failed state senate candidate who fails WP:NPOL GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete No matter how badly this article tries to assert it, he's not a notable political figure for an article based on evidence. Trillfendi (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being an unsuccessful election candidate is not an WP:NPOL pass, but this article makes no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons and offers no properly sourced evidence that his candidacy was a special notability case of significantly greater notability than most other candidacies. It's referenced 70 per cent to primary sources (genealogies and raw tables of election results); 20 per cent to dead links where the complete citation details were never properly provided, so we can't even retrieve them to see what they ever actually did or didn't say; and one short blurb about the plane crash he died in. None of this is how you source an unsuccessful election candidate as notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Most importantly does not pass WP:NPOL, but also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here too.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat and Rusf10 - GretLomborg (talk) 18:32, 9 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.