Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Bauman

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. Sandstein 13:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Bauman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO or WP:GNG based on the information presented in the article, nor can I find any substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete article is written like a WP:RESUME and WP:PROMO and most likely was created by the subject himself or by some sort of PR professional. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, the article contains just two sentences stating that he exists as a person who has had jobs, while containing no substance to indicate why he would be notable for that, and the referencing isn't getting him over WP:GNG either: two of the four sources here are his own self-published contributor profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, while a third is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself on a podcast. The last is a "five things to know about him" listicle in a digital magazine, but that publication's status as a notability-making source is debatable at best — and even if we take the charitable position on that question, it still takes much more than just one acceptable source to get a person over GNG. So no, neither the substance present here nor the sourcing provided to support it are enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for this political operative, although there is some sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPOL. -Zanhe (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2019 (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.