Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Mesplay (3rd nomination)

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 and redirect to Green Party presidential primaries, 2016#Candidates. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Mesplay

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

Deleted twice previously, I can find no evidence that notabiltity has been established since the last Afd discussion. Per WP:NPOL, he is not inherently notable just for being a candidate. Nor is he otherwise notable by the standards of WP:GNG or WP:42. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate landing page, such as Green Party presidential primaries, 2016#Candidates -- Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party presidential primaries, 2016#Candidates per nom. No prejudice against re-creation should the subject receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in the future.--JayJasper (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Besides the two independent, reliable sources already on the page, this, this from Wikinews, this from Pravda report, this from wwlp.com all indicate widespread media coverage sufficient for notability.--TM 11:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Green Party presidential primaries, 2016. No notability established per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Coverage consists of primary or non-WP:RS citations, and WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Fails WP:POLITICIAN quite resoundingly. I support keeping biographies of any minor party presidential candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to win the presidency in theory. He doesn't meet that threshold. He is a very minor candidate in a minor party. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he'd actually won a Green Party primary, thus becoming the party's actual candidate for president in an actual presidential election, then there'd be a valid case for inclusion. But merely being a non-winning candidate in party primaries is not, in and of itself, a valid reason for a standalone WP:BLP. And the sourcing here doesn't cut it under WP:GNG either — two are primary sources that cannot support notability at all; two are blurbs on a site whose entire raison d'être is news summaries of primary contests, thus constituting WP:ROUTINE coverage that fails to distinguish him as more notable than the norm; and the last is a non-notable local blog. And TM's additional sources noted above don't assist either: WikiNews is a user-generated content site to which anybody can publish any news they want, and because it's part of the Wikimedia family it also gets clobbered as circular sourcing to ourselves (which we're not allowed to do). WWLP is a press release from his own campaign, thus failing our rules against hitching notability to the subject's own self-published content about himself. Pravda is simply his responses to a pro forma "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that was offered to every candidate, thus ROUTINE coverage that fails to single him out as special. And while Indian Country Today is actually by a few dozen country miles the strongest and most GNG-worthy source of anything that's been shown here, it's a source that would be perfectly acceptable within a mix of solid sourcing, but is not prominent enough to carry GNG by itself as the article's only acceptable source. Otherwise, the path to getting a non-winning electoral candidate into Wikipedia is to demonstrate and source that they have preexisting notability for something other than the candidacy itself — but nothing claimed or sourced here shows that at all. So no, nothing shown here gets him an automatic inclusion freebie, and the sourcing that has been shown is not solid enough to get through the "notable because media coverage exists" loophole. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as this is enough, not independently notable for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 13 May 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.