Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollan Roberts II

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. Star Mississippi 03:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollan Roberts II

[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)

Page was De-WP:PRODed by 2crzppul who created a malformed AfD with the nominating statement "Properly nominating for other user. Demonstrates some notability, but debate is needed." TartarTorte 18:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Alabama, Montana, and West Virginia. TartarTorte 20:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe that this man meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, either as a businessman or politician. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Barely meets the Genrral Notability Guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 11:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How he "Barely meets the Genrral Notability Guidelines"? Can you explain. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in favor of keeping the article and expanding it when new information is published in reliable sources. We have already plenty of reliable sources in publications such as the New York Post, Der Spiegel and Blick.Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that publications has significant coverage about him? 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, because the articles do not just include one-liners on his candidacy. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are far too many political candidates in the world with more coverage than Roberts, who don't have Wikipedia pages and wouldn't be allowed one as a result. While I am an inclusionist, in terms of all content but political content in particular, it's hard to argue this meets the standard. Digging into Roberts's business background, it looks like a lot of self-sourced and unreliable sources for vague businesses. PickleG13 (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a ton of interest and attention on US Presidential Elections, and I believe Wikipedia should have as much information about these elections as possible, including pages for candidates like Roberts who are minor candidates but have received some press coverage. Kevingates4462 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Tristanthebard (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PickleG13. I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Aside from run-of-the mill campaign coverage, the article's sources are mainly primary and non-RS. Not enough to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PickleG13's reasoning. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an all-inclusive election guide. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is at best too soon for an article. The guy has one typical primary challenge for state legislature in Montana and a viral moment that had more to do with his wife than him. I doubt he will ever meet GNG, but right now we are at an article created on a news story covered in some newspapers.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2023 (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.