This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I know he didn't get 5% of the vote in 2000, but I'd say that candidacy was pretty notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-12-24T01:31:00.000Z","author":"Muboshgu","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Muboshgu-2010-12-24T01:31:00.000Z-No_Nader?","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-XK5Nkxn-2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Increasing_the_scope-2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z","replies":["c-XK5Nkxn-2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z-Increasing_the_scope"],"text":"Increasing the scope","linkableTitle":"Increasing the scope"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-XK5Nkxn-2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Increasing_the_scope-2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z","replies":["c-XK5Nkxn-2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z-Increasing_the_scope"],"text":"Increasing the scope","linkableTitle":"Increasing the scope"}-->
I think that the scope of the template should be stretched beyond 1990. At least to 1960, maybe even as far back as Reconstruction, to be in line with the criteria layed out here. XK5Nkxn (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z","author":"XK5Nkxn","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-XK5Nkxn-2012-07-28T18:10:00.000Z-Increasing_the_scope","replies":[]}}-->
I didn't get to point it out before the TfD closed, but I (as the nominator) would happily endorse User:JohnBlackburne's proposal, which was that this be repurposed to include links to notable candidates (with the elections they contested), setting notability of the individual as the inclusion criteria rather than an arbitrary statistic. (JohnBlackburne used the phrase "third party candidates", but I think it ought to include independent candidates too – the distinction's not a major one, and candidates in presidential elections are often both at once.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-09-17T02:50:00.000Z","author":"Arms & Hearts","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Arms_&_Hearts-2012-09-17T02:50:00.000Z-TfD_post-mortem","replies":["c-Arms_&_Hearts-2012-09-17T23:26:00.000Z-Arms_&_Hearts-2012-09-17T02:50:00.000Z"]}}-->
Changed my mind, too many names (see User:Arms & Hearts/sandbox7). I think having arbitrary criteria is probably a necessity for a template like this, which is why it should be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-09-17T23:26:00.000Z","author":"Arms & Hearts","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Arms_&_Hearts-2012-09-17T23:26:00.000Z-Arms_&_Hearts-2012-09-17T02:50:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
I wonder if this should be added as although the highest vote share for one third party candidate was less than 5%, overall the total for third parties exceeded 5% and in Utah and Vermont third Party candidates polled more than 5% Dunarc (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-11-26T20:03:00.000Z","author":"Dunarc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dunarc-2017-11-26T20:03:00.000Z-2016_Presidential","replies":[]}}-->
.svg)
