Deletion of Elizabeth Emken

Comment: Clearly fails . No other credible claim to notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Unsuccessful candidates for political office not notable for any other reason are not notable per 's initial two criteria. The key test is whether she has major coverage across a variety of reliable and independent sources, which she does not. Four links are dead, and appeared to just be candidate aggregators. One (autism speaks) is not independent of her and the Los Angeles Times article is just noting her candidacy. The only meaningful part of the article is her work on Autism, which in itself doesn't appear notable and is essentially reliant on a single source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election they didn't win — if you cannot show and |properly source that she cleared another notability criterion for some other reason ''besides'' her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election itself. But this does not properly source any evidence that she cleared GNG for her autism work; that entire section is referenced ''exclusively'' to |primary sources, not reliable independent ones. And no, the fact that she ran and lost in a ''Senate'' race rather than a House of Reps seat does not automatically make her candidacy more notable than the norm — a Senate candidate has a better ''chance'' of either already having enough preexisting notability to qualify for an article or having her coverage expand ''beyond'' the  and expected norm that all candidates for all offices always get, but there's still no ''automatic'' inclusion freebie for ''all'' non-winning candidates at that level of office: it's still  or bust
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:ROUTINE||WP:GNG)