Deletion of Shahid Buttar (3rd nomination)

Comment: Fails . Wikipedia is also not a . Try Ballotpedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: per  and ; ''accord'' {{U|Bearcat}} and {{U|Cassianto}}. This was deleted less than two years ago, and other than running yet again, there's no new evidence of notability. In 2020, everybody knows we are not Ballotpedia, |nor a resume host; we are a charity and a general encyclopedia. Lots of people run for public office, as I did, and even get local coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:SPAM||WP:NOTRESUME)

Comment: Unelected candidates (even those who challenge the incumbent Speaker of the US House of Representatives) do not pass . The best case for meeting  are the articles in Salon and the Hill. However, our standard for keeping unelected candidates is the campaign coverage needs to rise to the level of Christine O'Donnell or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (after she won the Democratic primary). In both of these cases, the candidate became commonly known nationally and internationally. In addition, this page currently reads like a campaign brochure - which is not the purpose of this project
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, but the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a -based ''exemption'' from having to pass  — ''every'' candidate in ''every'' election ''everywhere'' can ''always'' show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then ''every'' candidate would ''always'' be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate for office notable enough for a Wikipedia article, he needs to pass one of two tests: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, or (b) he can demonstrate a reason why his candidacy would pass the |ten year test for ''enduring'' significance, such that even if he loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again as long as he lives, people will still be looking for information about him in ''2030'' because of the sheer lasting importance of his candidacy itself.Furthermore, even if he ''did'' pass either NPOL or GNG, he would still ''not'' be allowed to have an article that was written like a campaign brochure: that is, bulletpointed lists of his political opinions sourced to his |self-published Twitter tweets are not support for his notability. Notability does not hinge on what the subject ''says'', it hinges on what the subject ''accomplishes''. But of the 34 footnotes here, 18 are tweets, three are to his own self-published website about his own campaign, four are other primary sources like other people's or organizations' self-published websites, three are to raw tables of election results, one is a YouTube video and one is a |user-generated personal essay on Medium.com — which means 30 of the 34 footnotes are not reliable or notability-supporting sources ''at all'', and the four that are left aren't enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Even Gaelan's 12 sources above still aren't enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies, because every other candidate can always also show 12 sources.As always, Wikipedia's job is not to maintain an article about everybody whose name happens to show up in the current news cycle — we consider the ''enduring'' significance of our article subjects, not just their temporary newsiness, and simply running as a candidate in an election the person has not won is not automatically a mark of enduring significance in and of itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL||WP:10YT||WP:SELFPUB||WP:USERG)