Deletion of Ethan Hastert

Comment: I haven't decided how (or if) I'll !vote on this AfD, but I want to point out that the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethan_Hastert&oldid=338632923 as it originally appeared was a real hackjob.  Also, to Titomuerte, |notability is not inherited, and if you find an article of someone who isn't individually notable but seems to be listed only by virtue of a family relationship, well, I hear you but .  Bothered that it hasn't been nominated for deletion?  
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: In my view, there is extensive coverage in which he is the principal subject: http://news.google.com.au/archivesearch?q=%22ethan+hastert%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=au&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2009/07&as_hdate=2009/12&lnav=hist9 here. As a general note, has there ever been consideration of applying the principles of  to candidates? Candidates tend to get a lot of coverage, which would pass , but if they fail, they're generally only notable for their candidacy. In that respect, the coverage could be said to be of the candidature and the horse race, rather than of the person. I see weaknesses in this approach (especially that it involves a bias towards incumbents and stretches the concepts of an "event" and of "low profile person") and am not putting it forward as my view but it seems like one possible way in which guidelines can be invoked to delete articles about failed candidates for political office who are not notable otherwise than for their candidacies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)