Deletion of Stan Jones (politician)

Comment: I can see both sides of this. On balance I think he's probably received sufficient media coverage to meet , but I recognise his relative unimportance as a politician.  I think the multiple re-listing in search of consensus shows that consensus won't be reached
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: the color of one's skin doesn't make him notable in itself.  He still has to be covered by third-party sources in a non-trivial manner.  All references to him are trivial and do not meet the guidelines of  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: I'm more a  stickler than most people here, and to me, notability would be demonstrated by significant comment in relatively-important press or books, showing notability ''more than'' just within the USA, and which can be expected to remain relevant over time. The article presently does have a mention in BBC as a source, but that's all. It seems Jones' notability is tied up entirely in losing an election twice as a fringe candidate, and having turned blue. Given he's not as well known or politically successful as Papa Smurf, I'd have to say the subject fails notability right now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)