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.
PRODding editor self-reverted after the edit was recognized as an accidental violation of their TBan, but busy as this person may be, I currently don't see this getting past any notability thresholds. Offered sources are either
WP:PRIMARY or strictly local, but nothing to meet
WP:GNG to a sufficient degree. AngryHarpytalk 08:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Neither restaurateurs nor unsuccessful election candidates are entitled to automatic notability freebies just because they exist, but the sourcing here isn't solid enough to suggest that he clears the actual notability criteria for those occupations. Three of the five footnotes are
primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and of the just two that are media, both are local coverage in local-interest contexts that don't clinch notability all by themselves if they're all he can show.
Bearcat (
talk) 20:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Insufficient sourcing to meet the GNG from a preliminary search, fails NPOL, reeks of PROMO. Regards, --
Goldsztajn (
talk) 02:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Doesn't meet notability. How are the fries?
Miaminsurance (
talk) 20:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete fails both GNG and NPOL. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 20:51, 30 March 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.