Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Bradley


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Philip Bradley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. The only sources provided are primary information from the Log Cabin Republicans, a deadlink letter written by the subject to a newspaper, a local award of no encyclopedic importance, and a deadlink to what appears to be a primary source written by the subject regarding a court case. I find nothing else in reliable sources, and thus this appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. This might be an attempt at notability by association, in that much of the content vaguely says he "was a part" of several activities associated with the Log Cabin Republicans as a member, without any clear or sourced indication of a role of importance. Kinu t/c 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. With four out of five sources being primary ones, and the only reliable source covering a purely local distinction that has no bearing on notability, there's not even the slightest hint here that he would actually pass WP:GNG at all. Subjective assessments about whether board members of the Log Cabin Republicans should be considered notable enough or not don't even have to enter into it — at the end of the day, an article like this lives or dies on its quality of sourcing, and the sourcing here doesn't cut it in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Kinu and Bearcat, poorly sourced article about someone who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (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.