Deletion of Douglas Herbert

Comment: then '''restore''' if the guy does get elected. I agree with the arguments that he doesn't meet  just yet, but I don't see how a delete is better than simply redirecting the article to a more relevant entry
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per precedent in similar articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). I interpret routine election coverage to fall under . Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per ) redirect to the election article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: That's because under  challengers are not inherently notable; incumbents almost always are.''''' I formally request that you withdraw this false and incivil accusation of bad faith on the part of people trying to consistently apply our guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: This individual has received sufficient coverage in independent sources, though some more of that material should be put into the article.  By the way, in response to the nomination, I see nothing in  that excludes "local" sources.  I also think that an entire Congressional District transcends "local
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Location, OrangeMike, etc, according to long-standing consensus at 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)