Deletion of Robert John Rushford

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as election candidates — he has to ''win'' the election, not just run in it, to clear  as a politician, and otherwise he qualifies for an article ''only'' if he can be properly demonstrated and |reliably sourced as having preexisting notability for some other reason ''besides'' the candidacy itself. But nothing else, either in the article or in the IP's misplaced talk page comment, passes a notability criterion at all. The only two properly footnoted references in the article were both  citations to other Wikipedia articles, which I've stripped because we're not allowed to do that — and the remaining "external links" are not notability-supporting references either, but |primary sources. This is not the stuff, or the sourcing, of encyclopedic notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:RS||WP:CIRCULAR||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES)

Comment: Article has been edited by  with same name as the subject - possible .  They removed the negative http://lsbc.vic.gov.au/documents/Report-Legal_Services_Board_and_Commissioner_annual_report-2013.pdf external link citing strike off for malpractice, which is an official Government publication
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:COI)

Comment: As far as I can tell there is almost nothing to be found on the subject despite their active period being aligned with the start of the WWW, so fails  let alone NPOLITICIAN or NPROFESSIONAL.  Note that the article as written seems to have a serious  problem - states the subject ran a very successful law practice BUT fails to mention the subject was struck off for legal malpractice - this is even in one of the cited (official) external references
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POV)