Deletion of Max Fosh

Comment: clearly fails . {{u|LouisCartier}}'s argument above is mistaken: additional media coverage of any significance about Fosh has not grown since he announced his campaign. If any does appear, as per , election coverage should go in the election article, not in separate articles for the candidates. (In the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely event that Fosh should win, we can re-create the article.) There are 8 other candidates in the election who don't have articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:NPOL)

Comment: per nom. None of us have a , so we must wait until criteria are met before recreating this article. The existence of other articles that may need to be deleted is no justification for keeping this one. I would also recommend a temporary moratorium on re-creating this article, given that it's now popped up twice in the last 3 weeks, and cannot be PROD-ded
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: He is not a politician,  is irrelevant. He is a YouTuber, an entertainer. I would consider the fact that he is a mayoral candidate a quite unique and innovative contribution and he is growing a large fan base. Salting is too drastic in my opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: per nom and Bearcat's thorough analysis, and fully support  per Domeditrix observations. Also, and because this has come up in several AFD debates lately, the argument that social media followings, such as YouTube in this article, equates to  criterion: ''Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following'' needs to be revisited in my opinion. Frankly, I think the  policy guidelines should outline that social media followers ought not be considered to meet criterion #2 since the number of followers can be manipulated through the purchase of online websites. This is somewhat touched on in , but editors insistent on inclusion of these ''social media stars'' continue to point to, and rest their case solely on  criterion #2 whether SIGCOV in multiple RIS is available or not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT||WP:ENT||WP:ENT||WP:NYOUTUBE||WP:ENT)

Comment: As yet unelected candidates for mayor of a city do not get Wikipedia articles on that basis per se — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to be notable on political grounds, and the idea expressed above that political candidates aren't politicians, and thus can't be measured against NPOL at all, is a laughable non-starter: preventing articles about unelected political candidates who don't pass any other inclusion criteria independently of the candidacy is ''precisely the point'' of NPOL, so trying to argue that political candidates aren't subject to it is doomed to fail. And the number of subscribers that a person does or doesn't have on a social media platform have absolutely jack spit to do with our notability criteria in any occupation — the notability test hinges on attention from ''real'' media, not from ''social'' media. But the references here are all either unreliable sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, which is not how you source a person over  in ''lieu'' of actually having to pass any specific notability criteria — we're looking for ''reliable'' source coverage ''about him'', not just any web page people can find that happens to have his name in it. And anybody who thinks that "if somebody else has a page then this person automatically has to have a page as well" is strongly advised to read  and , specifically the parts about how (a) the pages may not actually be genuinely equivalent, because there may be different circumstances and different sourceabilities, and (b) WAX arguments can backfire by causing the other article to be nominated for deletion too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WAX||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: to the admin closing this. The article has been updated since this nomination, more than anything it looks like a  in an attempt to save the article. There are sources that mention the subject only in passing (LadBible: Frosties Kid Rumoured To Have Died Says Advert Brought Heartache To His Parents) or not at all (BBC: Hemel Hempstead voted the 'ugliest' town in Britain), alongside local news stories referring to stunts carried out by the subject (clearly trying to ''make'' news) that refer to him only as 'Former Newcastle student', 'YouTube star' or 'fake model'. This is in addition to padding out the reference list by including links to the subject's YouTube channel, Facebook, and through foreign-lanugauge links to publications referred to extremely infrequently on Wikipedia. Examples of these are ''wolipop'' (used as a reference in fewer than 20 other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability), ''nd.nl'' (used as a reference in fewer than 20 other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability) and ''Ulyces.co'' (not used as a reference by any other articles across this version of Wikipedia, no RFC regarding its reliability). Please take care to see through this obvious attempt to fool a reviewer into thinking that notability criteria have been met
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB)