Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron McMurray

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron McMurray

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

Non-notable politician. Resume like. reddogsix (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree with deleting this page. All this information can not be found all on one page on the internet. It took newspaper archives, SoS searches, and more. Also with all the other party chair/ executive director pages on Wikipedia for Idaho and other states have more or less the same amount of information yet none of them are up for deletion (Wikipedia review roulette I guess)

talk) 16:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see WP:AVOID. We do not keep articles just because somebody worked hard on them, if the results of their work are not compliant with our inclusion and sourcing standards. You wasted your time, and that's not our problem. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic
reliable source coverage is not enough to clear GNG in lieu, and unsuccessful candidates in primary races do not automatically get articles just for being candidates either. And yes, this is written much more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article. It's not our role to provide one-stop shopping profiles of every single person who exists, without regard to whether they clear our notability and sourceability standards or not, so "all this information can not be found all on one page on the internet" is not in and of itself a reason to keep it either. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2017 (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.