Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willis Ricketts (2nd nomination)

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. No merge mainly due to the lack of a merge target, although the history of copyright violations by the article creator also strongly speaks in favour of deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Ricketts[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NPOL as a failed gubernatorial candidate with no significant coverage outside his campaign. GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the best option as I see. For more explanation; I had looked the article and I found that the article subject could kept in Wikipedia by merging the article with a bigger article, such as it's political party article.Forest90 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, while also keeping in mind the creator's incessant copyvios. As for the merge vote above, I believe that, at most, the subject could serve as a passing mention in a political parties article. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. I would also note that the articles creator, Billy Hawthorn, is a long discredited editor whose articles have a laundry list of problems ranging from copyvios to notability. This crud about a failed candidate doesn't belong on Wikipedia just because there is proof this guy existed. Best, Newshunter12 (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge where? I see nowhere clearly relevant. Maybe redirect at best. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO Charmk (talk) 04:18, 18 June 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.