Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Crabtree


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  23:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Steve Crabtree

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

Lack of sources Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kentucky. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,  and West Virginia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Comment is accurate, articles shouldn't be deleted simply because there is a lack of sources in them nor for any reason that can be corrected through editing. I think it would help to look at those WP pages that have lists of good and bad arguments for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: articles aren't deleted because they're inadequately sourced; they're deleted because their subjects aren't notable, or the statements in the article are unverifiable. WP:BEFORE expects a reasonable effort to locate sources before nominating articles for deletion; articles shouldn't be nominated merely because they don't contain enough sources.  Being an unsuccessful candidate for a state office may not be enough to establish notability, but it might be combined with some of the other assertions to do so.  Even unsuccessful candidates for office generally receive news coverage, but that hasn't been cited—so we know there are sources out there that haven't been included in the article.  Once a reasonable attempt to find sources has been undertaken, then we'll be in a better position to tell whether the subject is notable.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Commment I looked and coulndt find anything top three results are an IMDb, facebook profiles and a linkedin. Google news bring up various obituaries.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: To assess addition of sources by Sammi Brie which has been evaluated by Let'srun, further input needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sources out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Just added several sources. Notably the October 1995 Lexington Herald-Leader article has a fairly lengthy profile of him as part of coverage of the secretary of state election. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I appreciate the effort to add sources, but at this point I don't see enough GNG level coverage to justify a keep for this working individual. Coverage seems mostly limited to the election in which he was a failed candidate, and the consensus here is that type coverage is not significant and is routine level. If there is an article on the 1995 Secretary of State race, I would support a redirect. Let&#39;srun (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per Let'srun. Coverage doesn't appear to be sufficient to meet GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: I read the article and discovered it fails GNG. It also fails WP: people and WP:JOURNALIST. Though the article is well written, there's no in-depth coverage of the subject by secondary sources, reliable and multiple sources. Google does not show relevant information about the subject except obituary... I, therefore, agree that this article should be deleted. You can read WP:NOT. Ezra Cricket (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2023 (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.