The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus on the target for a redirect to replace the article. —Darkwind (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Mesplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not notable by WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Perennial third-party candidate who never even got his party's nomination for anything, much less won any elective office. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is a high ranking official in the Green Party and has been elected to multiple posts within it. Not winning the election is not a measure of notability. Coverage is the measure, and he has received a significant amount of coverage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since he never got the nomination and really never achieved anything in a political capacity, his political notability is sufficiently limited to prevent him from having an article. Ducknish (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... or even a redirect IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. & others. Insufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. No objection to a redirect, but unsure which page to target given that he is mentioned in both the 2008 & 2012 Green National Covention articles.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - coverage of his three presidential campaigns as well as his position as a high ranking official in the Green Party is significant enough to merit inclusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show us an example of that coverage? Because I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources about him. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please open the link provided under your initial comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I saw nothing that could be considered an Independent Reliable Source. Ballot Access blog? OpEdNews?? Pravda??? I ask again, which SPECIFIC items on that list provide significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources? --MelanieN (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll overlook your ignorance of Richard Winger and Ballot Access News, and ask how many sources you'd like for me to provide.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for one. --MelanieN (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to post just one. I need to know what you see as the threshold.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, but so far I have not seen any significant coverage at all. Look, I have "rescued" lots of articles at AfD. The way you do it is by posting links - individual links to individual cases of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Or better yet, adding such references to the article, which is what I do if I truly believe the subject is notable and ought to be kept. Other people are likely to switch their "delete" !votes to "keep" if your sources are convincing. But you are playing games here and I am done. If you think the article ought to be kept, show us why. If you have examples of significant coverage by reputable sources, link to them. A link to a search page showing mostly passing mentions in mostly shaky sources is not going to cut it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. In an ideal world, I would do those things. But I don't have time for that at the moment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012#Green Party; subject does not appear to have received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources. Subject has received multiple mentions, but non that appear to be significant coverage, therefore the subject clearly fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. That being said, the mentions are related in the subjects failed runs in elected office; therefore WP:POLOUTCOMES come into effect. There are multiple potential redirect target, I just chose the most recent one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.