Deletion of Saba Ahmed

Comment: Per BLP1E, NPOL and NOPROMO. Subject fails 1E which is a clearly defined exception to GNG/BASIC. Subject has no other claim to notability other than her candidacy. And the article is naked . Even if there were a claim to notability independent of her failed political career, and there isn't, we don't allow promotion or advocacy on Wikipedia, period. NOPROMO is policy and trumps notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMOTION)

Comment: this woman has an in-depth profile in the New York Times. And this is ''already in the article.'' Another profile in International Business Times that is already cited. Is this AFD an error? {{ping|Saqib}} did you do all of the checks in ? &ndash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per BLP1E and WP:PROMO. A difficult call since there are a few sources, but her candidacy apparently only generated one article and I'm not even counting it as the "one event" as she only got 250 votes. The remainder of the coverage is due to one self-generated event. I don't think she's far off from passing , but every source here is either trivial (i.e. her being found in California) or self-promotional
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries, but this does not make any strong claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons. The existence of a profile in ''The New York Times'' is not in and of itself a magic bullet that inherently exempts her from having to clear the deliberately high bar we set for non-winning candidates — the rule most certainly is ''not'' that a person at this level of significance clears the bar the moment ''one'' piece of extralocal coverage exists, it's that enough extralocal coverage has to exist to get her over the |ten-year test as a topic of ''enduring'' significance. What I am ''not'' seeing here, however, is a credible reason to believe people will still be looking for this article in 2028. She might attain something like that in the future, certainly, and if that happens then a new article can be recreated at that time — but nothing here is a credible reason why she could be considered to have already cleared the ten-year test today
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT)