Deletion of Alex Kuch

Comment: This is more than 50 per cent dependent on |primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things — and while there are certainly a few pieces of |reliable source coverage ''about'' him shown as well, there aren't ''enough'' of those to get him over , because none of them say anything about him that would make him "inherently" notable. If a person doesn't pass any subject-specific inclusion criterion, but instead you're going for "notable just because some media coverage exists", then it takes ''more'' media coverage than this to get him over the bar. And yes, nominator is correct that there's a definite "public relations profile" skew to the writing, suggestive of a possible |conflict of interest even if we can't definitively verify that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:COI)

Comment: While Kush has certainly been in the news and is a public advocate as well as he has some sources from Stuff and One News, I don't think there is enough there to pass ,  as he has received '''significant''' coverage in multiple published reliable sources. While he was up for Young New Zealander award, the article http://nzawards.org.nz/news/semi-finalists-2018-new-zealander-year-named/ is just his name in the list of nominees
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)