Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark E. Clayton


 * 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 redirect to 2012 United States Senate election in Tennessee. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Mark E. Clayton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most likely fails wp:POLITICIAN and wp:POLOUTCOMES. Subject hasn't even held office; only major instances of received coverage are unsuccessfully running for US senate in 2012 and unsuccessfully suing the Tennessee Democratic Party for not allowing him to run for governor. Would suggest a redirect to 2012 United States Senate election in Tennessee Bneu2013 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Also of note is that this article has been nominated for deletion before (when the article was under a different name). Bneu2013 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per nom. No evidence of having done anything else that achieved any note - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as Clayton has only ever been a candidate and has not held national or sub-national political offices. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 15:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to admit I am sick and tired of the SPLC being treated as a reliable source, when it throws around the label of "hate" on anyone who it disagrees with, with no regard to the general understanding that hate groups encourage actual violence. Having your own party turn against you after you get the nomination is not a sign of notability, it is a one time news event, and not enough to make you notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - I had no idea this would come up here, but, just in case you are interested, there is currently a discussion about whether or not SPLC is a reliable source. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not terribly convinced that quibbling over the definition of hate speech is the determinative issue here — queers get the final mic drop on what is or isn't anti-queer hate speech, and non-queers do not get to put us in the corner on the grounds that they somehow understand what we actually have to go through better than we do ourselves. But that's not really the determining factor: what's more dispositive here, rather, is that the sources show little evidence of enduring nationalized significance that would somehow make his candidacy more special than all the other unsuccessful candidacies in the history of politics. Out of fourteen sources total, eight are the purely expected level of local coverage that every candidate in every election can always show without fail, two more are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and what's left is not enough to demonstrate that he would pass the ten-year test for enduring notability. This is just not, in and of itself, enough. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for federal office. In general, basic (and reliably-sourced) information about the candidates can be included in a page about the election. In addition, and generally speaking, an individual must meet WP:GNG outside of their campaign or receive national or international coverage that is significantly greater than normal (see Christine O'Donnell). --Enos733 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.