Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Colbert

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. Deor (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Colbert

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

Minimally sourced (sole reliable source is a blurb) WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former staffer in a mayor's office, and as a withdrawn candidate for a political party's nomination in a provincial election. These are not claims of notability that get a person over WP:NPOL, so his hope of qualifying for inclusion would rest on passing WP:GNG — but that doesn't happen either, as I just did a ProQuest check and found not even a single source any more substantive than that blurb. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable; reads like a political candidate flyer. Kierzek (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician spam. four years ago was on the staff of the ottowa mayor? not notable. intended to run for an office but then did not? not-notable. spent three years as editor of the "Colbert Report Blog"? well, that's just his own (Brent Colbert's) own blog! it is NOT (as one might at first think) a blog related to the actually-famous Colbert Report. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to indicate subject meets WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2014 (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.