Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rocque (politician)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rocque (politician)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful candidate for a U.S. House of Representatives seat - not in the sense of losing the election, not even in the sense of losing the primary, but in the sense of "fail[ing] to obtain the requisite signatures to participate" in the first place. That is, apparently, the entirety of the subject's political career. It's difficult to fail to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN harder than that. My searches didn't turn up anything for GNG, at least not about this Michael Rocque, and the two references on the article are (1) a article about someone else that mentions his existence in passing, and (2) the candidate's own (now-defunct) campaign site. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about what happened here, the article was started in 2008 at a time when he was still an actual candidate in the primary. Even that, obviously, still fails WP:NPOL as it stands today, but in 2008 there was still some unresolved debate about whether unelected candidates were notable or not — so that goes some way toward explaining why this exists. There is definitely no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability here, however — even the candidate who actually makes it all the way onto the final ballot doesn't automatically get an article for that anymore, let alone "candidates" notable only for losing, or failing to even get into, the primary race. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's seemingly nothing to suggest even better general notability here. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 11 December 2015 (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.