- 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. Feel free to ask for a restoration at WP:REFUND if the situation changes. ansh 666 18:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
John P. Cahill
- John P. Cahill ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Searching for sources turns up very little, too little for WP:GNG. He ran for AG of NY in 2014 but lost, so fails WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete defeated candidates are non-notable, his other positions were non-notable as well. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in elections — if he does not win the election, then to make him notable enough for an article you have to demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons besides the election. But while there are other claims here that could make him notable if he were sourced to enough media coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG for them, there are no claims here that would entitle him to an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing — and the only source cited here at all is his own self-published résumé on LinkedIn, which is not a source that counts toward getting someone over GNG. So no, nothing here is good enough. Bearcat ( talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wait and see. Cahill's name has been bandied about as a potential candidate for Governor of New York over the past several weeks (see, for example, https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/02/12/poll-gov-andrew-cuomo-didnt-have-good-month/328046002/ and https://www.wsj.com/articles/candidate-for-governor-gathers-gop-support-to-take-on-cuomo-1518397433). If he pulls the trigger on a candidacy, he might become notable. I would wait a month or so and see what develops. SunCrow ( talk) 11:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't "wait and see" just because a subject might attain a stronger notability claim in the future — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and does not deal in the realm of predictions. If a person fails our notability standards today, then we delete the article today and then permit recreation in the future if and when the notability equation has changed — we do not keep an article just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today. Bearcat ( talk) 19:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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.