Deletion of Nomiki Konst

Comment: for lack of, well, notability.  she has participated in founding a number of minor organizations; she ran for a party nomination to a seat in Congress, which produced a little ROUTINE coverage; and there was a profile of her as a delegate to her party's national convention - all of which fails to support notability.  she's youngish; perhaps it is merely , although lots of people do good work in activist movements and as party activists for a lifetime; even going to every state and national Party convention as a Delegate for decades without every becoming notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Fails  as Konst has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Tweets and routine coverage related to a failed candidacy does not source a BLP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC)

Comment: We do not have 12 independent sources here, as the creator claims. Right off the bat, four sources are ''not'' independent of her: #1 is her own primary source profile on the website of her agent; #2 is her own Twitter; #3 is a press release from a company she's worked for; #11 is content distributed by the show she works for. That's four primary sources that cannot assist notability at all, already. Then there are four ''more'' sources that cannot assist notability at all for different reasons: ''Mediaite'' is not a reliable source at all; the Arizona Secretary of State is a type of  source that ''every'' candidate in ''any'' election could ''always'' show ''regardless'' of their notability or lack thereof, because there's ''always'' an "all of the registered candidates" directory on the website of the relevant elections authority; one just namechecks her existence a single time in an article that isn't ''about'' her; and Q&A interviews can be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after notability has already been covered off, but cannot be ''bringers'' of notability as such because they represent the subject talking about ''herself''.Which leaves us assessing ''four'' GNG-eligible sources, not 12: but of those four, two exist solely in the context of her candidacy for an election that she didn't win, one exists solely in the context of her having been a delegate to the presidential primaries, and one exists solely in the context of her being ethnically Greek. But being a non-winning candidate in an election is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — she has to ''win'' the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician — and showing two sources about her candidacy doesn't make it special, because ''every'' candidate in ''any'' election could ''always'' show two sources about that. Being a primary delegate is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and being Greek is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself.As for being notable as a broadcaster, no reliable source coverage about that work has been shown at all — broadcasters have to be the ''subject'' of coverage in media outlets ''other'' than their own employer to qualify for Wikipedia articles, not just to be nominally verifiable in their employer's own |self-published content. So, for all of those reasons, ''nothing'' here properly demonstrates that she qualifies for an article ''either'' as a broadcaster or as a politician
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE||WP:SELFPUB)