Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troyce Guice


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Troyce Guice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NPOL being only a Senate candidate. Page was created by a serial copyright violator. I do not believe any of the non-dead sources satisfy GNG. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラP 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Mr. Guice seems like a nice man who's tried to get involved in the political process. But I'm sorry to say that his life and political involvement doesn't live up to wikipedia's guidelines for notability.  The multiple citations in this article are not specifically about the subject on the article, but instead are crammed in to give the veneer of notability, so unfortunately this article should be deleted, without prejudice.  I hope at some point a reputable secondary source does a piece on Mr. Guice, but as of now it does not appear that any such source has done so. -Markeer 01:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, pretty clearly fails WP:NPOL and there isn't significant coverage to make him notable beyond that. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 11:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As usual, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win; as usual, Billy Hathorn had no understanding of our actual notability standard for politicians, and thought (wrongly) that as soon as you could find a local obituary the person had automatically cleared GNG (and thus been exempted from having to pass NPOL) even if all the rest of the sources were unreliable and non-notability-supporting junk. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above, and WP:CCC. This was created 11 years ago - the wild west period of Wikipedia, when we had much more lax standards. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is insufficient weight in the form of independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG and no alternative approach under WP:NPOL appears to be satisfied. Most of the sources utilized here (those that can still be accessed anyway) mention the article's subject only in passing and thus do not constitute the the substantial, in-depth coverage expected of sources for purposes of a notability analysis, and the titles of the other (now dead) links don't suggest any deeper coverage for the most part and, under the circumstances, I don't think we can presume otherwise without archived versions of those sources to establish otherwise. Furthermore, with eleven years having passed since the article's creation, I think we can presume that if there were additional interest in the subject and sources covering him since his death, they would have manifested by now.  All the information taken together, deletion seems appropriate. Snow let's rap 18:55, 20 October 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.