Deletion of Julia Salazar

Comment: Facially passes ; I'm unable to discern an actual rationale for deletion in the nomination. He tries to imply there's been little coverage, which is false, and then adduces various non-policy-based reasons to dismiss the coverage as somehow irrelevant ("routine," "small brouhaha," the sources are supposedly too liberal or too "NYC based," etc.) This doesn't convince
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: it seems a little rich that you, as nominator, are changing your !vote to ''merge'' when it's become clear that you're in  territory. How about you do the right thing and just withdraw the AFD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: on the basis of  - she's had substantial coverage in the Intercept and also in Haaretz which is international in scope. I don't think  entirely applies due to the current heat going on within the Democrats regarding establishment vs DSA candidacy, which this ultimately ties into. Concede she's marginal, but I tend to lean toward keep in marginal cases, especially when GNG conditions are met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Salazar has been the subject of coverage in the national and international media. I believe she passes  regardless of whether she passes . —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL)

Comment: or move to draft - , failing . This is a candidate in the primaries to the state senate (the primary in September, the actual elections in November) attempting to unseat an incumbent democrat in the primary. To qualify for NPOL - she would need to have won the actual state senate seat. Prior to the election cycle (e.g. if you do a BEFORE time-ranged to 2017, filtering out all the sidebar hits from the election) she was not notable - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CILsufn5IDM an appearance at Glenn Beck not withstanding. All the coverage we have is from the election cycle - while it is more voluminous than the typical state senate primary candidate due to issues regarding her identification/identity (as well as some coverage of the Democratic Socialist wave in which she is given as an example) - it is definitely less than the typical US senate or congress hopefuls (for the actual elections) that we routinely delete. Barring her winning the election, there's little expectation for this coverage to be  in this  situation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NPOL||WP:SUSTAINED||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election, as per #Politicians#Candidates.  Note that similar candidate  Zak Ringelstein has been similarly redirected.   And that this ''MERGE'' is to a space where most r all of the content of this page can be transferred.  The great advantage is that this is in keeping with longstanding policy on unelected  candidates that prevents Wikipedia for being used a venue for political . And that will  this material on an appropriate page documenting this year's remarkable wave of socialist candidates, something that had not been seen in the U.S. for almost a century
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:PROMO||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: the article itself could use improvement and expansion of her positions, but she has received extensive coverage over both her Jewish identity and socialist politics. I do agree we need to be cautious about , otNews and romo but I think we can handle that :) NY elections are in less than 2 weeks anyways and her run will be notable nonetheless
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:P)

Comment: So far the delete !votes seem to boil down to  - a reminder that, as {{U|FourViolas}} and I keep pointing out, it doesn't matter ''why'' somebody has gotten over the  line. If they're notable, they're notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a really difficult one and I don't think the nomination makes a particularly good argument against the article. One of the sources even notes "Julia Salazar has earned media attention that most state senate primary candidates could only dream of, including serious treatment in The New Yorker, and friendly profiles in New York magazine, The Forward, The Intercept, and Vice." It passes , but  is only a presumption of notability. What makes this difficult: the article as it is written violates both ,  and to a lesser extent  and . While she's been well-covered, her notability derives from the fact she's in the same faction as Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez (leftist news) and because of a number of contradictory or unforced errors she's made (rightist news). There's no election page to redirect to, and it will be difficult to rewrite it as it is in a NPOV. I also note the election she's running in occurs September 13, so she will either win the primary (and therefore likely the general, and be notable per NPOL) or lose the primary and be a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:NOTPROMO||WP:NOTSCANDAL||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Democratic Socialists of America candidates, 2018 election as per #Politicians#Candidates.  This race is a clear case of  , and as I have said at the pages of other, closely parallel candidate pages, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Innamorato, we do not start pages on candidates running for office.  And '''note''' that despite the enthusiasm on exhibit at this AfD, she is running in the Democratic primary against a popular Hispanic incumbent
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:BLP1E)