Deletion of Mike Shaikh

Comment: If and when he's ''appointed'' to the Senate, then he'll obviously qualify for an article on those grounds — but for the exact reasons Madg2011 describes, merely winning one of Alberta's unofficial senate nominee elections is not an automatic guarantee of appointment. These elections are not constitutionally mandated, but are one province's unofficial exercise in senate reform which prime ministers are free to support or ignore at their own discretion — generally, ''if'' the incumbent PM at the time of an Alberta senate vacancy is a ''Conservative'', then a "senator-in-waiting" will get the seat(s), but if the incumbent PM is a Liberal, then most likely the "senator-in-waiting" ''won't'' get the seat. (Both Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin also ignored a couple of "senators in waiting" to make other appointments instead.) As of today, five of the winners since 1989 have gotten appointed while four have ''not'', and that would have been five-four the ''other'' way if one of the non-appointed election winners from 1998 hadn't run again a ''second'' time in 2004 and then gotten appointed off ''that'' victory. So merely winning one of these elections is ''not'' an automatic  pass in and of itself, because it offers no guarantee that the person will ever actually accede to office. Which means for now, the only valid grounds for an article here would be getting him over  for his career in business, which the minimal sourcing here isn't doing — ''if'' he actually ''gets'' appointed to the Senate, ''then'' he'll qualify for an article, but he doesn't get one just for being the winner of a ''theoretical'' election whose results nobody actually has any constitutional obligation to honour. And for added bonus, this is written ''remarkably'' like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, which isn't the type of article he would get to have even if he ''were'' an actual senator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)