Deletion of Gil Cisneros

Comment: This subject meets the  criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", enough that the article can be expanded to mitigate concerns about hagiography. In addition to the ten sources currently in the article, there are a bunch of national sources with substantial coverage of notable aspects of his campaign, including
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as article creator. Was just up on the front page via DYK. You waited for it to come off? I wrote this article neutrally using reliable source that date back years, not just of him winning the lottery, but of him creating a foundation that kept him in the news. That significant coverage over time is plenty sufficient for . &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Being a candidate is not sufficient, but the combination of being a lottery winner and philanthropist along with being a candidate gathered sufficient coverage to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: passes . \\\Septrillion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. The substantive notability claim here, and the reason why this article was created, is the election candidacy — but candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and if you take his candidacy out of the equation the lottery/philanthropy content is ''not'' substantive enough (or sourced well enough) that he would have qualified for an article on that basis independently of his status as a candidate. The only sources here that exist outside of the campaign-specific context are a single article in his ''local'' newspaper and two citations to the same "public relations platform for philanthropists" |blog, which is ''not'' enough coverage to get a philanthropist over GNG as a philanthropist — so I can't give this a keep on "preexisting notability for other reasons" grounds. I can evaluate this only on the grounds of whether he clears  or not — but as a candidate whose campaign coverage is ''not'' showing any signs of being unusually deep or broad compared to most other candidates, he doesn't pass NPOL. Certainly it can be recreated in November if he wins, but nothing here now is enough to convince me that he's already permanently notable today
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:BLOG||WP:NPOL)

Comment: to the page on the election. He doesn't pass  or  - yet. If no consensus to redirect, read this as a delete vote
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL)