Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Hazel


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Shane Hazel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable political candidate; fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources covering him are mostly just WP:ROUTINE, WP:LOCAL election coverage, with no sources providing WP:SIGCOV that I can find. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism,  and Georgia (U.S. state). Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia. As I said in my edit summary the first time I redirected this, losing politicians generally fail WP:NPOL and this article is almost entirely based on routine campaign coverage * Pppery * it has begun... 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one and losing. A candidate needs to either show that he had preexisting notability for other reasons besides unsuccessful candidacies, or that he has a credible claim to his candidacy being a special case of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies, but this demonstrates neither of those things. No prejudice against restoration of a redirect from the redlink afterward, but the article should be deleted first since there's no value in retaining it in the edit history. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly local campaign coverage, does not meet WP:BASIC. ― Tartan357  Talk 04:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and Bearcat. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the sourcing is not enough to demonstrate notabiluity. Someone who gets less than 0.5% of the vote really needs good sourcing to show notability, and we do not have that here. In fact even people who come close to winning in the type of elections he was in are almost never notable for that, someone getting so few votes not really. The claim that he was crucial to the outcome is not actually supported by most sources on the election in question, most such sources argue other factors were way more important. I have read quite a bit about this election, at least in general analysis, and never seen this person mentioned as a factor at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2022 (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.