Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward C. Noonan

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 no consensus. No consensus is forthcoming and the trickle of debate indicates no clear actionable consensus will be reached by endlessly relisting. KaisaL (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Noonan

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

This article does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Few sources, never won an election, never was a formidable or notable candidate, seems only potentially notable due to his political involvement, which he does not seem notable at all. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. No doubt this article needs improvement, especially better sourcing. Noonan's role in the AIP struggle is arguably his most notable achievement. Noonan also received coverage from reliable sources for his suits regarding President Obama's eligibility. He is also a perennial candidate, and other perennials have their own articles (but, admittedly, the existence of other articles does not justify this article). --Weazie (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was the state chair of an extremely small party, and engaged in hopeless lawsuits more gained at garnering publicity, but that lack the widespead coverage to justify saying he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Based on search results, there is some notability. That said, not enough reliable sources to support the content of the page. Coderzombie (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2016 (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.