Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Sullivan (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sullivan

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

No evidence of notability; was a candidate for nomination, was not nominated, I find nothing useful on him including when searching using the company name added at the end of the article. Article was created in July 2004, before the primary, and has not changed much since. Prior AfD was when they were called VfD and was closed "no vote", although both of those commenting seem to have advocated deletion. There are at least two other Craig Sullivans who come up on search: one has recently made the papers in the UK, the other, whom I was checking for, was CEO of Clorox and died recently; he was G. Craig Sullivan and not the same person as the article subject. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN: "unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"--Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this article survived a deletion attempt in 2005 shows just how poorly thought out notability guidelines were back then. I also have to add that Don Barbieri also seems to fail notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if Sullivan had won the primary election, that in no way would have propelled him closer to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in political party primaries — but this makes no claim that he has any preexisting notability for any other reason, which is the only other way a non-winning primary candidate would qualify to have an article. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not, in this instance, even run a search, because as Bearcat says, no claim to notability is made, article doesn't even name the town where he lives, which might have been a useful keyword.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2017 (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.