Deletion of Mark E. Clayton

Comment: I'm not terribly convinced that quibbling over the definition of hate speech is the determinative issue here — ''queers'' get the final mic drop on what is or isn't anti-queer hate speech, and non-queers do not get to put us in the corner on the grounds that they somehow understand what we actually have to go through better than we do ourselves. But that's not really the determining factor: what's more dispositive here, rather, is that the sources show little evidence of enduring nationalized significance that would somehow make his candidacy ''more'' special than all the other unsuccessful candidacies in the history of politics. Out of fourteen sources total, eight are the purely expected level of local coverage that every candidate in every election can always show without fail, two more are |primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left is not enough to demonstrate that he would pass the |ten-year test for enduring notability. This is just not, in and of itself, enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:10YT)

Comment: as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for federal office. In general, basic (and reliably-sourced) information about the candidates can be included in a page about the election. In addition, and generally speaking, an individual must meet  outside of their campaign or receive national or international coverage that is significantly greater than normal (see Christine O'Donnell
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  as Clayton has only ever been a candidate and has not held national or sub-national political offices
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)