Deletion of Ash Sarkar

Comment: Sarkar clearly passes  and this is a blatantly disruptive nomination. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: sources provided by Sam Walton in the initial keep comment are more than enough for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: Barely meets  per Sam Walton. Contrary to the nom's suggestion, Sarkar need not meet  if she meets /, which Sam Walton's sources (particularly those in ''The Times'' and ''Teen Vogue'') demonstrate&mdash;although another in-depth profile would be nice if it's available
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:NCREATIVE||WP:BASIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: meets  as demonstrated above. (pinged by feedback service
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: It's no good just simply typing "The actual standard she needs to meet is  which she clearly does." That is not a meaningful argument. You need to be specific, as  unfortunately isn't. Is it seriously your contention that anyone who is written about in, say, The Times or Teen Vogue meets ? Is that "'''Significant coverage'''"? Do you have any idea how many millions of people that would include if our threshold was so low? How on earth is this article encyclopedic. I.e. '''What is anyone supposed to learn from this Bio entry?''' She has made no original, significant contribution to political commentary, academic debate, nor has she produced any significant works of art. These kinds of articles reduce Wikipedia to a very Twitter/Tabloid mismash of gossip rag and vanity self-promotion. This person's "notability" derived from an incident on a morning chat show (there'd be millions of those guests to add too) in which she called Piers Morgan an idiot and declared herself a "literal communist". What is encyclopedic about that?  '''"Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy OTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy OTPROMOTION."''' Why can't you just be specific? Why can't you agree to maintain at least some basic standards of academic rigor? If the Encyclopedia Britannica was expanded to include 5 million articles, ask yourself, do you honestly believe this would or should be one of them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:N||WP:SUSTAINED)

Comment: per , {{tq|People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below}} (e.g. ), and because there is another profile: https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/40580/1/political-campaigners-lily-madigan-ash-sarkar-owen-jones-interview Meet the voices resetting the political agenda in the UK (Dazed, 2018) and per , {{tq|Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:CREATIVE||WP:GNG)