Deletion of Jake Leahy

Comment: fails  as a local school board member so the appropriate metric is . The references in the article include coverage several local papers and the "national" coverage include a op-ed the subject submitted to "The Hill" and a link to a local news article included in a roundup of Illinois politics in "Politico." The local coverage is . In past AfD's being the youngest officeholder in a state has not been seen as notable, in an of itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG||WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: fails  and subsequently . Being the youngest doesn't make him notable. As he has failed , the higher standard of notability in  must be applied, and there is no automatic presumption of being youngest within that standard, automatically conferring notability, hence he fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Being the youngest person to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not a notability claim that confers an automatic presumption of notability — school board trustees do not get Wikipedia articles just for being school board trustees, and being the youngest trustee on the board does not make him more notable than his other colleagues in and of itself. None of Wikipedia's inclusion standards confer any special status on being the youngest person to achieve something in and of itself — the thing they achieved still has to clear a notability test on its face, and if it doesn't then age doesn't confer a free notability boost.And there's no  pass here either, as the sourcing here is ''far'' too strongly dependent on |blogs and purely |routine local coverage in the local media — ''every'' school board member who exists ''at all'' could ''always'' show this much local coverage. And of the two sources which ''do'' expand beyond the purely local, one contains a mere ''blurb's'' worth of information about him in a "potpourri of many topics" sort of article, and thus isn't ''substantive'' coverage of him, while the other is an op-ed where he's the bylined ''author'' and not the ''subject'' — so neither of those sources is contributing ''anything'' to making him more notable than the norm for a school board trustee. For an officeholder at this level of government, the sourcing has to show him as significantly ''more'' notable than the norm before he clears GNG in lieu of failing NPOL — but the sourcing here isn't showing that at all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLOGS||WP:ROUTINE)