Deletion of John Dennis (California politician)

Comment: mostly because it's okay to be a |notable failure. I don't think he's a paper candidate, as suggested above, in fact there is http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_33/Uphill-Climb-for-Candidates-Challenging-Leaders-218615-1.html?pos=opolh at least one source that plainly contends he was not. His campaign received coverage, like http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_21832762/incumbents-fundraising-dwarfs-challengers this, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican-movement-_b_1981846.html this and http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_21818191/incumbent-power-new-rules-dont-offer-much-hope this, though admittedly in relation to other people and other things where the subject is an "also" mention or one of a number of examples given. I don't think this is really a matter of the subject |inheriting notability from his opponent - he was endorsed in his own right by politicians like Ron Paul and his candidacy (though mentioned with reference to his opponent) is covered in its own right. The only question, then, is whether a campaign (or two) counts as "1E" for the purposes of . I don't think it does, but... I'm not about to die in a ditch over it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:INHERIT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Whatever this guy thought he was doing, he passes  criteria by hitting the 15% level. If his campaign was a just a protest or whatever, it was clearly a notable one. I don't really know. But obviously this guy was the republican choice to go up against Pelosi (to crash and burn). A little research will show that 15% is about the expected number when one "sacreficial lamb" is placed up against a giant of the opposite party. This holds true for both parties in entrenched areas. Obviously he's not a paper candidate, therefore he's a legit candidate. The article should stand
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)