Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Paikin
Per , a person does ''not'' qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being a ''candidate'' in a future election — and given that he ''withdrew'' his candidacy this week, he isn't even |verifiably ''that'' anymore, and ''all'' we can do is |crystal ball the possibility that he ''might'' change his mind again in the future, or run in a different election instead. It's not a question of "minimum age" — a ''newborn baby'' can be notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she manages to pass , and a 90-year-old person can be ''not'' notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she doesn't — rather, it's a question of minimum sourceable/notable ''accomplishment''. If he actually ''wins'' a future election, then he'll certainly qualify for an article at that time, but a person in politics (''regardless'' of their age) has to ''win'' election to a notable office (''not'' just ''run'' for one) to qualify for a Wikipedia article. ''Especially'' if that article is relying primarily on the person's own social media presence for sourcing; Facebook and LinkedIn are '''not''' |reliable sources for our purposes. We do not "owe" him anything on here, contrary to Stonepillar's assertions above — a person does ''not'' get to have an article on here until they can be |properly sourced as having ''accomplished'' something that gets them past one or more of our |notability rules. Having an article on Wikipedia is ''not'' an ''entitlement'' that anybody automatically gets just for ''existing
— User:Bearcat, 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:POLITICIAN||WP:V||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)