189:. Numerous people declare themselves independent/minor party presidential candidates in every U.S. presidential election. A much smaller number actually make it onto the ballot in even one state. Right now, the subject is just one of the "numerous people". It is too early to know whether he will actually make it onto a ballot, and without ballot access or independent coverage from reliable sources, he cannot yet be considered notable. --
160:
doesn't provide any 3rd party sources and has had one candidate (claimed) who received 4% of the vote. Once. No corporate info, only website. This is yet another candidate for a party that fails to establish its own notability. With politicians, I prefer to give miles of latitute to 3rd party
141:
No reliable sources. Candidates aren't automatically notable, it has to be shown in each case. All I could find was a web site for his party, the New
American Independent Party, his campaign website, and some Google hits that either weren't independent of the subject, or seemed obscure. Actual
123:
Can't determine that Jon A Greenspon been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The subject also doesn't meet the criteria for politicians at
165:. Might be notable for something other than presidential candidate if the 15 articles claim is true, but that is not really the reason the article is asserting notability, so would require rewrite.
116:
161:
candidates as main stream media often ignores and neglects them, but this is just a bit too obscure for me without at LEAST mediocre sources. Fails
142:
mentions of his name in the regular press might change the situation. I didn't even find any links to press mentions on his campaign website.
89:
84:
93:
17:
76:
157:
220:
36:
56:
219:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
205:
193:
181:
169:
146:
132:
58:
162:
80:
49:
72:
64:
190:
129:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
125:
143:
202:
178:
166:
110:
213:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
156:. I was ready to jump in with a KEEP, but even his party
106:
102:
98:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
223:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
201:per nom., and all other comments.--
24:
158:New American Independent Party
1:
206:12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
194:06:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
182:05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
170:22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
147:21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
133:20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
59:01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
240:
216:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
52:¤~Persian Poet Gal
231:
218:
114:
96:
34:
239:
238:
234:
233:
232:
230:
229:
228:
227:
221:deletion review
214:
87:
73:Jon A Greenspon
71:
68:
65:Jon A Greenspon
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
237:
235:
226:
225:
209:
208:
196:
191:Metropolitan90
184:
177:- Per Sancho.
172:
150:
149:
121:
120:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
236:
224:
222:
217:
211:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
195:
192:
188:
185:
183:
180:
176:
173:
171:
168:
164:
163:WP:notability
159:
155:
152:
151:
148:
145:
140:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
127:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
54:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
215:
212:
198:
186:
174:
153:
138:
122:
51:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
144:EdJohnston
203:JayJasper
179:Brusegadi
167:Pharmboy
117:View log
139:Delete.
90:protect
85:history
199:Delete
187:Delete
175:Delete
154:Delete
130:Sancho
126:WP:BIO
94:delete
46:delete
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
115:– (
128:.
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
48:.
119:)
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.