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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Mike Fellows (politician)

Mike Fellows (politician) (  | 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 basis for notability. Very minor officeholder, being the first Libertarian Party candidate to be elected in a statewide office might be notable, but not merely winning a 40% share of the votes, but losing. (presumably originally intended as advocacy for his political carrier, he is no longer living_ DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL, no other claim of notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• KEEP, clearly notable figure. Very important historical figure in Libertarian politics. according to a Washington Times article by By Matt Volz, he had been involved with the Montana Libertarian Party since 1982.
  Mike Fellows was also the Montana coordinator for the Fully Informed Jury Association [1]. He was also the longest-serving active state chair of the Libertarian Party [2]. Fellows was referred to in the Billings Gazette as the "Godfather of third-party politics in Montana" and for good reason! Fellows made history in 2012. In the 2012 election, Fellows actually made national history by becoming the first Libertarian in national Libertarian Party history to crack that 40 percent barrier in a partisan statewide race. It had never been passed before! He won 43% of the votes which amounts to 185,419 votes and thus carried 27 of the state’s 56 counties in a two-way race for the Supreme Court clerk position. He also was running against the incumbent Democrat Ed Smith. Not only is that no mean feat, that's a history making event! Love or loathe the Libertarian party, it made people right across the United States take a second look at the Libertarian party. And Fellows was responsible for that. His presence and historical winning of 43% of the votes has reverberations that transcend the state of Montana and reverberate anywhere in the United States where a Libertarian party exists. Karl Twist ( talk) 10:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep per #3 of NPOL. Not all of the refs are RS-worthy, but most are. Still needs cleanup, though. South Nashua ( talk) 17:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - As I see it, we have the high bar of the POLITICIAN special notability guideline in place as a filter against the propaganda of self-serving political wannabes on the make. Note that this is a non-living subject; thus a return to the more lax normal GNG standards may well be appropriate. 17:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, 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 WP:GNG — and for a fringe party that's never actually won a seat in any WP:NPOL-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. Bearcat ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2017 (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.