Deletion of Ruth Alcroft

Comment: As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not already won; the notability test for politicians is ''holding'' a notable office, not just running for one. The only other way they can qualify for an article ''before'' holding office is to have already been notable enough for other reasons that they already qualified to have an article anyway, but being a local councillor is not an "inherently" notable political role either: politicians at the local level are accepted as notable ''only'' if they can show a depth and range and volume of |reliable source coverage that's unusual enough to make them ''much more special'' than most other local politicians, and the sourcing here is completely failing to demonstrate that. Obviously this will be recreatable on or after election day if she ''wins'', because her basis for notability will have changed, but simply being a candidate is not grounds for an article as of today
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: No notable being a candidate. Meeting  is a after elected criteria. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:NPOL)

Comment: Non-notable |politician.—&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per . Subject in question has not (yet) been elected to any notable position of government
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)