Deletion of Raheem Kassam

Comment: What's the argument, here? Just because there is a lot written on the subject doesn't mean he is notable for a page on this encyclopaedia. The entire article reads like a Curriculum vitae, to whom is it beneficial that the subject has worked on a minor Presidential candidate's campaign? The reader or the subject? or that the subject has a position at antiquated think-tank? Why should we care that he worked briefly for the Taxpayers' Alliance? How is this individual notable enough for that information to be useful? From the beginning of this article, it looks as if it has been the victim of sock-puppeting - and even if it isn't - how is the subject notable enough to be on this encyclopaedia? Blog-posts or 'executive editors' (who normal web-masters would call 'Admins') of minor blogs have never been enough for an article entry. I recommend deleting. The entire page sounds like a marketing campaign for the subject and, by the style of the writing, most likely to have been written by the subject himself. I direct users to  and  for I believe these two issues are the one's at heart at deleting this page. Special:Contributions/78.40.152.129|78.40.152.129
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:N)

Comment: per . Raheem Kassam may have worked for a number of notable people and the article namechecks a lot of them, but nothing that Raheem has done is notable in itself. --  — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: the article is |an ugly mess, but having reviewed some of the sources, they appear to show notability. Other than a possible COI, I don't see a problem
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:UGLY)