Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reakash walters

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 00:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reakash walters

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

Article about an unelected candidate that fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails above policies; at best it's WP:TOOSOON for him to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The politician is in the aspirational phase, so no notability. In addition, the article is misnamed, so whoever wrote it didn't even care enough to name it Reakash Walters. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So they're in the running to become a party candidate for an election. Definitely fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not pass WP:NPOL just for being candidates, either in a party's internal primary/nomination contest or on the general election ballot — if you cannot credibly and reliably source that she already passed a Wikipedia inclusion rule for some other reason before she became a candidate, then she does not become eligible for an article on here until she wins the election (and just to clarify in case there's still any doubt, it's the big enchilada on October 19 that she has to win to qualify for an article on here, not just the nomination.) And nothing else in the article either claims or sources anything that would put her over a different notability rule instead of NPOL. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October if she wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being notable, as shown above. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (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.