Deletion of Kash Jackson

Comment: Subject has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources, passes  
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: The coverage in |reliable sources is ''not'' evincing anywhere near as solid a GNG pass as claimed above. Of the eight references present here, two are YouTube videos which contribute ''zilch'' toward building a GNG pass; one (''Free Thought Project'') is an unreliable source; and one (''Chicago Tribune'') is campaign-related coverage that fails to support the preexisting notability necessary to get an unelected candiate for office into Wikipedia. That's fully half the sourcing decapitated right there. And of the four remaining reliable sources, he's substantively the ''subject'' of just ''one'' of them (''CBS Denver'') — ''all'' of the other three merely namecheck his existence as a bit player or soundbite-giver in coverage that's ''about'' someone or something ''other'' than him. This is ''not'' what it takes to pass GNG, not even close — I strongly suspect that some or all of the keep voters above merely eyeballed the ''number'' of sources without actually taking note of their ''quality'' at all, because there's only ''one'' source here that's both reliable and substantively ''about'' Kash Jackson
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Article contains several reliable sources, some of them actually covering the subject in detail (and some passing mentions), enough to pass , which is sufficient even if  is not met. At the very least, it could be merged to the election's article, so deletion is not a viable alternative either way. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:POLITICIAN)