Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Bradley
per nom. With four out of five sources being |primary ones, and the only |reliable source covering a purely local distinction that has no bearing on notability, there's not even the slightest hint here that he would actually pass  at all. Subjective assessments about whether board members of the Log Cabin Republicans should be considered notable enough or not don't even have to enter into it — at the end of the day, an article like this lives or dies on its quality of sourcing, and the sourcing here doesn't cut it in the slightest
— User:Bearcat, 13:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:No original research)