Deletion of Tom Horner

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at  is ''holding'' a notable political office, not just running for one, and no, whether you define the party he ran for as "major" or "minor" doesn't make a difference to that at all, as "losing candidate for a major party" still isn't a notability criterion. Notability is also ''not'' boosted by sources where Tom Horner is the ''author'' of content about other ''things'', so none of Tom Ruen's hits above help at all — notability can ''only'' be established by sources where Tom Horner is the ''subject'' of third party analytical content written by other ''people'', and the existence of |run of the mill campaign coverage of a losing candidate is ''not'' enough in and of itself if he can't be shown to have garnered any non-trivial coverage in other contexts as well, precisely because ''every'' losing candidate in ''every'' election ''everywhere'' can ''always'' show some evidence of campaign coverage. To be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, rather, it would have to be demonstrated that either (a) he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him into Wikipedia ''independently'' of an unsuccessful election candidacy, or (b) he could show a strong reason why his candidacy should be regarded as much more ''special'' than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the |ten year test for ''enduring'' significance. Neither of those things are in evidence here, however
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:MILL||WP:10YT)