Deletion of Chele Farley

Comment: clearly meets GNG and  bio guidelines. Other guidelines like NPOL and BLP1E are just additional inclusion guidelines to "catch" those that don't meet broader guidelines - voters above seem to be treating them as the only ones. Clicking the News search links above demonstrates significant coverage already and will only surely grow
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: to United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2018#Candidates_2; not independently notable. As an unelected candidate, does not meet . Coverage is routine for this phase of the campaign, and there's nothing better
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: At the Senate level, it is certainly ''possible'' for an unelected candidate to clear GNG on the basis of receiving substantially more and wider and deeper coverage than most other unelected candidates — it's certainly at least ''somewhat'' more likely to happen for a Senate candidate than it is for a House candidate or a state legislature candidate, but it's still by no means whatsoever ''guaranteed'' to happen for ''every'' Senate candidate. (And further, Senate candidates are also significantly more likely, though still by no means guaranteed, to already have enough preexisting notability for other reasons to have qualified for an article on those grounds ''anyway'', such as having already served in another NPOL-passing political role ''prior'' to running for the Senate — so pointing out other examples of Senate candidates who got articles despite losing isn't determinative.) So being a Senate candidate is ''not'' an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, and it certainly hasn't been demonstrated here that she's already earned special case status. Even if we take YankeesFan's Israeli news stories as getting her out of the ''starting'' blocks toward being more notable than the norm, as it stands they're just  for a single campaign comment, so they don't get her to the ''finish'' line all by themselves. Over the course of the election campaign, at least half to two-thirds of all candidates nationwide will be able to show ''something'' "out of the ordinary", such as getting namechecked in a "ten races to watch" listicle on CNN or Politico or making a five-minute appearance on ''Anderson Cooper 360'' — so it still takes ''more'' than just ''one'' "out of the ordinary" thing to make a candidate more notable than the norm. There has to be a ''substantial'' body of "out of the ordinary" coverage, not just one or two hits, to make a candidate a special case. If a candidate didn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate, then she does ''not'' instantly clear the bar just because she made one comment that got her a blip of BLP1E coverage in Israel — her international coverage would have to explode to Christine O'Donnell proportions before it clinched permanent |ten-year test-passing notability in and of itself
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:10YT)

Comment: The coverage that the candidate has is not independent of their candidacy, which could be an argument for . The larger argument here is that candidates don't inherently pass  without other notability. Being an investment banker and Republican fundraiser is not notable enough to pass the muster. See Draft:Zak Ringelstein, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Maine. If people want to be informed about their candidates, local media sources provide plenty of detailed information, as does http://ballotpedia.org Ballotpedia. Every election, (especially in the Canadian election articles I've worked on) there are always operatives with a clear oI who want to promote their candidate. I'm not suggesting that the editor in question has a conflict of interest here, but when John Doe Green Party wants to make an article for his local candidate who they feel has a clear shot of winning, it makes me suspicious of any entry with dubious notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:NPOL||WP:C)

Comment: Depending on how this goes, I wonder if there should be an RfC to consider a modification to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: to United States Senate election in New York, 2018. This is, and should be the standard practice for candidates for national legislature, who are not notable prior to the campaign. The reasoning is two-fold. First, the election is a(n extended) case of  as all the coverage about a subject is within the context of the election itself. The second reason is that losing candidates are likely to remain a low-profile individuals after the campaign is over. All of the pertinent information about the subject can be placed in the campaign page (including basic biographical information, polling, and other details about the campaign). If we regularly keep (losing) candidates, there is an increased risk of Wikipedia becoming a repository for campaign material and increases the risks of vandalism (as supporters and opponents of the campaign seek to edit the page to be favorable to their position
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)