Deletion of Mike Plummer

Comment: Being a candidate for office does not make you notable per . Notability must be proven separately and Plummer has credible claim to notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: WP:POLOUTCOMES states, "local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." Furthermore, "to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone." In this case, the subject is the recipient of local coverage of his service on the Poole Borough Council, and has not been the subject of national news. The community consensus on  has not been to extend the term of sub-national office to include local borough councils or similar municipal or county office (The text of the policy is explicit to state "statewide/provincewide"). Because the subject does not fit within , the appropriate standard is  - the sourcing in the article and through a news search fail to show significant coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: Regardless'' of what party they're standing for, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being ''candidates'' in elections — if you cannot demonstrate and |properly source that he was ''already'' eligible for an article for some other reason ''independent'' of his candidacy itself, then he has to ''win'' the election, not just run in it, to get an article out of it. And serving on a local borough council is ''not'', in and of itself, grounds for a Wikipedia article either — ''municipal'' councillors are presumed notable ''only'' in major metropolitan global city|global cities on the order of London, ''not'' in every city, town or village that exists. And ''every'' candidate in ''every'' election would ''always'' clear GNG if four or five pieces of ''local'' campaign coverage was all you had to show to get them over the bar — coverage of a non-winning candidate for election to Parliament has to ''nationalize'' before it builds a case for GNG.And for added bonus, even the media sources ''here'' largely aren't ''about'' Plummer; three of the five just namecheck his existence in coverage of something ''else''; one of the remaining two is a letter to the editor, not news content written by the newspaper's ''staff''; and the last is a purely  candidate sketch plainly submitted by his own campaign. ''None'' of this constitutes enough ''substantive'' coverage ''about'' him to mount a valid "passes GNG" claim. And, by the way, I'm ''Canadian'', and about the ''only'' difference between the UK's election system and ours is the whole "UK runs all the ballot boxes to a single central count location while Canada counts them onsite at the original polling station" thing, which has no bearing on candidate notability at all — so GGLD can spare me the "you don't understand why the UK is different" angle.GGLD, further, is getting dangerously close to |disruption with their continual unfounded allegations that this has anything to do with ideological bias — and, frankly, given that (a) this is the ''only'' topic GGLD has ever worked on, and (b) the "LD" part of their username happens to imply a direct personal connection to the very LibDem party that Plummer is a candidate for, my |conflict of interest radar is beeping rather loudly here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:ROUTINE||WP:DISRUPT||WP:COI)