Deletion of Matt Wootton

Comment: A failed candidate in local council elections. It's hard to find a clearer fail of  than that. As per nom, sources are nowhere near getting past 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: per the http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Matt+Wootton%22 lack of |reliable sources. The sources used in the article are mainly from the subject's website or Blogger (service)|Blogspot, neither of which are Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Mkativerata and Fences' points about political candidacy in local elections is legitimate if the subject were to be viewed solely as a political candidate. But clearly there are other aspects to the notability. It is incorrect to argue that sources are not valid  - sources include the subject being featured as the major subject of an hour-long BBC4 TV documentary (BBC4 is a British channel that reaches nearly 2 million viewers per day (see http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewing?_s=4)), the subject's film winning a competition and appearing on BBC Newsnight (the BBC's flagship current affairs programme with many millions of viewers). I would have thought that these instances of prolonged exposure to millions of people for different reasons at different times were sufficient to establish notability, even without seperate reporting at other dates in the national Guardian and Times newspapers of the UK. Specifically with reference to Wikipedia Policy: the sources of BBC4, BBC2 Newsnight, The Guardian and The Times constitute Significant Coverage, Reliable Coverage and are obviously Independent of the subject. The differing reasons for which this guy has been on national British TV also indicate that his notability is not a "flash in the pan" of one event. Furthermore, Bearian's dismissiveness of the subject as a "minor functionary of a minor party" is obviously not only narrow but highly contestable: the subject's post appears to clearly have been a major post in which he did something major and worthy of coverage in several national newspapers, and whether or not the Green Party is a minor party is a different debate that I don't think the four of us are really qualified to adjudicate and should not necessarily lead to the Green Party and Greens not being included on Wikipedia. This article has existed for 3 years and been edited by a good dozen people without challenge. It appears that the subject himself did edit it once, but on one day and 3 years ago, so it is unlikely to be mainly autobiographical. The article seems to me to be a useful contribution. It seems unnecessary and possibly highly contentious to delete it at this time. We should take off the tag and move on. Special:Contributions/24.186.176.173|24.186.176.173
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Can I also draw to the attention of contributors to this discussion the following Wikipedia policy  regarding the use of multiple accounts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:ILLEGIT)

Comment: Non notable party functionary for a short period. Fails  by any measure and secondary coverage is very minimal
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)