Deletion of John den Dulk

Comment: so candidates in an election to a national office are inherently (generally) non-notable.  What if there are multiple |reliable sources (say, newspaper articles, which, despite your comment to the contrary, will be available 10 years from now) that provide enough |verifiable information such that an article about the candidate can be written?  Additionally, what proof do you have that someone will not want to read about an election and its candidates 10 years from now?  (Actually, that's probably the best time to study an election, or even later than that, after the historical picture becomes more clear with time)  The whole idea is (1) biased in favor of incumbents and possibly violates NPOV and (2) supported only by subjective perception of what is and is not "notable" with passing reference to WP:NOT.  The blanket assertion that political candidates are non-notable is, I posit, an untenable position.  I don't meant to single out your arguments only, Vectro, as there are other editors who have argued in the same vein.  I suppose all I can do is chalk it up as yet another example of the
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: doesn't meet  or &E
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:C)