Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark M. Noble

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Mark M. Noble}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Mark M. Noble}})

Third-party candidate for a state legislature fails WP:NPOL miserably. KidAd • SPEAK 20:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral question to nom Have you done any check to see whether the person meets WP:GNG? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

::I see [https://www.google.com/search?q=Mark+M.+Noble&oq=Mark+M.+Noble&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l3.384j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 nothing]. KidAd • SPEAK 03:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with nominator, search for articles on this candidate produced nothing new that isn't already cited, which is mostly election listings and filings such as with the Ohio Secretary of State. Only 1 student newspaper article from his alma mater covers him significantly. Based on this, it does not rise to the level of meeting WP:SIGCOV at this time.
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, and the existence of a smattering of campaign coverage does not hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from NPOL either — every candidate in every election can always show the existence of some campaign coverage, which would mean NPOL would never apply to anybody at all anymore. A candidate only gets a GNG-based exemption from having to hold an NPOL-passing office if either (a) they had preexisting notability for other reasons that already got them over GNG independently of the candidacy, or (b) their coverage nationalizes to such an extent that they have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater notability than most other candidates in some way that passes the ten year test for enduring importance — but neither of those things are in evidence here. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.