Deletion of Priscilla Lord

Comment: Political candidates are going to get media coverage during the campaign, but that does not constitute  in and of itself. Failed political candidates are not notable simply because they were in a campaign. There’s nothing else notable here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTEABLE)

Comment: Fails  as an unsuccessful primary candidate. Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: I've added some national and state press coverage about her role as Al Franken's "https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/us/politics/10minn.html most visible Democratic rival" (NYT/AP) (https://www.npr.org/sections/vox-politics/2008/08/lord_farris_goes_negative_on_f.html NPR) in the 2008 primary campaign, including https://www.startribune.com/new-tv-ads-all-sniping-no-substance/26895354/ after she lost (Star Tribune) (https://www.twincities.com/2008/09/09/its-on-to-november-for-franken-coleman/ MPR News), which supports  notability and appears to demonstrate more than  due to the significance of the event and the documentation of her role. Due to other non-campaign news coverage after the campaign https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/sports/3764929-feds-weigh-allegations-gender-inequity-u-m-athletics 1 (2015), https://www.army.mil/article/36121/fort_bragg_youth_help_people_of_haiti 2 (2010), and an opinion article in the ''Star Tribune'', https://www.startribune.com/the-student-debt-burden-is-worse-than-you-even-realize/284043281/ 3 (2014), she also has not remained completely 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:BLP1E||WP:LOWPROFILE)

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — and Goth4prosper is correct that the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a "GNG"-based exemption from having to pass , because ''every'' candidate in ''every'' election ''always'' gets some campaign coverage literally by definition. So the notability test that a candidate has to pass is not "does some campaign coverage exist": it is "does a reason exist why her candidacy should be seen as uniquely significant, in some way that would pass the |ten year test for enduring significance", but that hasn't been shown here. GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep everyone who happens to surpass an arbitrary number: it tests the sources for the ''context'' of what they're covering the person ''for'', and discounts some types of coverage as much less notability-making than some other types of coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:10YT)

Comment: fails , not otherwise notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: per NPOL, , and my standards for lawyers (see
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)