Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Tabor

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. ✗plicit 23:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Tabor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:Author, WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. Reads like a promo created by SPA. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of his political activity passes WP:NPOL — people do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries or municipal council elections, or for being a backroom campaign consultant to other unsuccessful candidates, or for being local chair of a political party's local chapter in a county — but the stuff about his work as a writer is referenced to primary sources and a Q&A interview in which he's the speaker and not the subject being spoken about, which is not how you get a writer over WP:AUTHOR either. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat, who always makes these fails NPOL/GNG deletion rationales more eloquently than I. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 28 April 2021 (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.