Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Thompson (Canadian politician)


 * 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. North America1000 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Steve Thompson (Canadian politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Candidate in the Alberta general election, 2015. The seat was won by Lorne Dach Uhooep (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  05:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails our notability guideline for politicians as an unelected provincial legislative candidate who finished in third place. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – A third-place candidate and electronics store manger is definitely not notable. Graham (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that they were already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independently of their candidacy, then they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election. And for added bonus, the article was created by User:ThompsonAlberta, an evident WP:COI, and is sourced entirely to primary sources except for a single deadlinked "ridings to watch" blurb in the newspaper — which is not enough coverage to claim WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as still not better notable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  08:05, 17 February 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.