Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtland Sykes

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland Sykes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the criteria for a notable person / politician FideKoeln (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges

Has never held a political office and is not the nominee of his party

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 23:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Missouri, 2018#Republican primary Right now nothing besides a Facebook thing to define their Senate campaign; if they win the primary they'll probably get an article, but until then there's no 'there' here. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for nomination are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet nonwinning candidates in future election primaries — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable for some other reason besides his candidacy (e.g. having already held another notable political office), then he has to win the general election, not just run as a primary or even general election candidate, to be considered a notable politician per WP:NPOL. And having some campaign-related coverage does not automatically equal a WP:GNG pass, either, because every candidate in any election can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the Senate seat, but nothing here, neither the substance nor the sourcing, qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates not notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES - fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.