Deletion of Madison Cawthorn

Comment: this is the full text of the  guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: to the election he doesn't meet  until (if) he wins, and not sooner. Coverage of his running is news, not indicating any sort of individual significance until he wins. We don't presume politicians are notable until they win election, not before. There's actually quite a large amount of coverage of him running (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53169344 BBC, https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882750969/24-year-old-easily-tops-president-trumps-pick-in-n-c-republican-primary NPR, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/madison-cawthorn-wins-north-carolina-republican-primary-election-house-of-representatives/ CBS, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/us/politics/madison-cawthorn-north-carolina.html NYTimes). imo this is still barely a case of  because he's right now |only notable for one event, but there's definitely a case to be made for keeping as well
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:TOOSOON||WP:1E)

Comment: per . I'm sick of the idea that ONLY elected candidates are allowed to have articles, as well as the fallacy that "if we keep this, we gotta keep all unelected candidates." Cawthorn has received enough coverage in reliable sources that, even if he loses (which is a possibility), he is still deserving of an article due to the coverage and the historic nature of his primary win. It is honestly setting a ridiculously high bar that any candidate needs to be internationally recognized to have an article pre-election. We don't have that standard for other wikiarticles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: for now per . He is only the presumptive Republican nominee for the district. IF he is elected to office on November 3, then we can establish whether there shall be an article on the subject. Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina for now
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: This is not a vote, but just something for all to consider before voting. The article as it is does not appear to be written well, but that's not a reason to delete. While it's true that Cawthorn does not yet meet NPOL, he likely will. {{ushr|NC|11}} has a Partisan Voter Index score of R+14, as Trump beat Hillary 62-33.7 in the district in 2016.https://cookpolitical.com/pvi-map-and-district-list This is not a district where Democrats are expected to have much of a chance. The election forecasters call this race "Safe Republican". So, granted that  does apply, this discussion is about a politician who is likely to be elected to the House in November. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: to 2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina#District_11. As an unelected candidate, does not meet  yet. Coverage is rather routine, not meeting  either
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:BASIC)

Comment: For the most part, all I am reading is . When the community has kept an unelected candidate, there is usually another factor, especially a tremendous amount of international coverage of a candidate. For AOC, she defeated a member of the House Democratic leadership. For other candidates, they are often kept if they are running unopposed, are treated as the exemplar candidate (so they are emblematic of all other candidates from a particular year), or commit a gaffe so outrageous that the coverage is outsized (see Christine O'Donnell). And in nearly every case, the community is split on whether they should be kept. In this particular case, I do not see any identifiable reason that this subject, should they lose election, will remain notable if they never hold an elected office. The case made here is that the subject is young (but not the youngest) and defeated a same-party candidate running for an open seat. While  there is a lot of words spilled over a candidate, whom I agree is likely to win, making this conversation moot in November, stripping all of the veneer, ''there is nothing that makes this subject more special than most,'' thus failing our general community standards about unelected candidates. And all of the things that do make the candidate unique should be added into the page about the election
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)