Deletion of Kent Mesplay (3rd nomination)

Comment: passes . Besides the two independent, reliable sources already on the page, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2007/12/21/meet-presidential-candidates-kent-mesplay-91968 this, https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_Kent_Mesplay,_Green_Party_presidential_candidate this from Wikinews, http://www.pravdareport.com/world/americas/21-02-2008/104192-kent_mesplay-0/ this from Pravda report, http://wwlp.com/2016/01/01/kent-mesplay/ this from wwlp.com all indicate widespread media coverage sufficient for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: If he'd actually ''won'' a Green Party primary, thus becoming the party's ''actual'' candidate for president in an ''actual'' presidential election, then there'd be a valid case for inclusion. But merely being a non-winning candidate in party ''primaries'' is not, in and of itself, a valid reason for a standalone . And the sourcing here doesn't cut it under  either — two are |primary sources that cannot support notability at all; two are blurbs on a site whose entire ''raison d'être'' is news summaries of primary contests, thus constituting  coverage that fails to distinguish him as ''more'' notable than the norm; and the last is a non-notable local |blog. And TM's additional sources noted above don't assist either: WikiNews is a |user-generated content site to which anybody can publish any news they want, and because it's part of the Wikimedia family it also gets clobbered as |circular sourcing to ourselves (which we're not allowed to do). WWLP is a press release from his own campaign, thus failing our rules against hitching notability to the subject's own |self-published content about himself. Pravda is simply his responses to a pro forma "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that was offered to ''every'' candidate, thus ROUTINE coverage that fails to single him out as special. And while ''Indian Country Today'' is actually by a few dozen country miles the strongest and most GNG-worthy source of ''anything'' that's been shown here, it's a source that would be perfectly acceptable within a ''mix'' of solid sourcing, but is not prominent enough to ''carry'' GNG by itself as the article's ''only'' acceptable source. Otherwise, the path to getting a non-winning electoral candidate into Wikipedia is to demonstrate and source that they have preexisting notability for something ''other'' than the candidacy itself — but nothing claimed or sourced here shows that at all. So no, nothing shown here gets him an automatic inclusion freebie, and the sourcing that has been shown is not solid enough to get through the "notable because media coverage exists" loophole
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:ROUTINE||WP:BLOGS||WP:USERG||WP:CIRCULAR||WP:SELFPUB)