Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Fellows (politician)
as surprised as I am to find myself agreeing with Karl Twist about pretty much anything. The sourcing here is substantial enough and voluminous enough to satisfy  — and for a fringe party that's never actually won a seat in any -passing legislative body at all, getting the biggest vote total in that party's entire history, and thereby coming the ''closest'' that anybody in the party has ''ever'' gotten to actually winning an election, is a pretty decent claim to being at least somewhat ''more'' notable than the norm for unsuccessful candidates. And yes, since he's dead we don't have to weigh this against the prospect of the article getting misused as a campaign brochure in a future election — that doesn't mean we should automatically drop NPOL for ''all'' dead candidates and weigh them solely against a very general standard of "it has sources so it can stay", but in an edge case like this where there's a pretty ''substantial'' volume of sourcing and a credible reason why he could be considered more notable than usual, that argument is a valid factor in tipping the balance
— User:Bearcat, 00:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NPOL (Wikipedia:Notability)