Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hudson Connell

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. Michig (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hudson Connell[edit]

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

Definitely doesn't pass WP:Artist. I don't think he makes WP:POLITICIAN because he did get elected...! Plus the edit history shows COI. Theredproject (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to be blunt, this is an amateur artist. The page has been specifically written to puff up references that have no value in terms of establishing notability. Fails all notability tests.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't quite see WP:BASIC being met here, which would probably be an easier bar than WP:ARTIST. There are enough five-to-eight word segments taken from the Legacy ref that I'd have some copyright concerns as well. In 2011 I noted that the article at that time was not entirely unsourced, but looking through the history I don't see a lot of deep coverage in independent, reliable sources, in the current or previous versions. --joe decker ^talk 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at one time major party nominees for national legislative office were considered notable, however we have since tightened our notability guidelines on this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:GNG per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:47, 18 March 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.