Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell
Tip for others checking this AFD: There are 60-odd links in the reflist, but you can save yourself half the work by skipping URLs to government sites and Libertarian sites. Gross case of junk-source ombardment. Fails  and standard . I've spent an unreasonable amount of time reviewing the mountain of sources. The pile of Libertarian-party sources are not independent, and thus carry exactly zero weight for Notability. (The award from the Libertarian party to their own candidate is worthless for the same reason.) The government sources are worthless because the government must indiscriminately document all candidates. Voterguides from random private groups also offer indiscriminate listings. The many sources that don't even mention him are irrelevant. Sources with bare passing mentions don't help. The election-coverage he did get was was the negligible attention that any hopeless throw-away candidate would get, and that coverage was essentially non-existent outside of some college news production. He has no meaningful notability beyond being a cliche irrelevant-perennial-candidate who never gets more than (approximately) zero percent of the vote. The 'keep' votes above show significant "topic-specific passion", soapboxing, wanting to |right-wrongs, and rants that deletion is censorship. I do not believe they offer an impartial evaluation of the sourcing. I do not believe they are representative of the general community consensus. I humbly suggest that they be weighed accordingly
— User:Alsee, 09:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:B||WP:NPOL||WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:RGW (Wikipedia:Bots)