Deletion of Saoirse McHugh

Comment: Doesn't meet  as has never held national/similar office. Doesn't appear to meet  as effectively all news coverage relates to various efforts as a candidate. And the only stand-out coverage (afforded to the subject which is different/more than that afforded to other candidates) is that of the clash with another specific/named candidate. Which is in the BLP1E realm. Not seeing any reason that this subject/candidate is any more notable than any other unsuccessful candidate for office
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)

Comment: per nom. The article cannot be notable according to  and . The subject fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Satisfies GNG regardless of her lack of success at the ballot box. She is a controversial figure and this has generated significant, sustained covered in national newspapers.  A simple  Google News search would have indicated as much
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Highly-notable politician, who is a household name in Ireland and easily meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails , not convinced meets . Single event person, nothing else of notability in their life or career that is being indicated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: fails , regardless of her lack of success at 3 elections in 2019–20
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this doesn't even attempt to claim that she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy. And just because she got a brief blip of  coverage for scoring a rhetorical punch in a debate, against another candidate who ''also'' lost, is not in and of itself evidence that her candidacy passes the |ten year test as a reason why people would still be looking for information about her in 2030. Obviously, no prejudice against recreation in the future if she accomplishes something more notable, like actually winning a future election
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:10YT)