Deletion of Annamie Paul

Comment: to the Green Party election. At this point, she fails , since the only reason why she's notable at this point is the fact she's a candidate for party leadership, which I'm not sure is even an automatic  qualifier, and arguably  (while the text isn't overly promotional, it is clear the article has been written to support her candidacy.) Her lasting notability hasn't been proven yet, since if she loses the election, she won't be notable
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NPOL||WP:PROMO)

Comment: per . Might meet  once elected, but not yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NPOL)

Comment: This AFD raises legitimate issues of applying |general notability.  But there are arguments being used that are handwaves at best and appear to be deeply confused
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I think this AFD will end up at |DRV no matter what the result is.  That is, some editor is going to be a jackass (or jennyass) about this AFD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: This interpretation of NPOL prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, so it should be |ignored. Furthermore, SNGs don't override the GNG. Paul sails over the GNG, and held a number of positions before her candidacy. She was a human rights lawyer, liaison to the EU, and the Green Party's appointed foreign policy critic. There's plenty of RS info on her life and background so that the article isn't just a campaign summary. I'll also add that in the current political climate, deleting this article could look really, really, really bad for Wikipedia and we should consider that as well.  &minus;&minus;&minus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: I used to think that I was a moderate deletionist.  I am not sure whether my views have changed, or Wikipedia has expanded (which it has), or my interpretation of inclusionism and deletionism has matured, or what.  On the one hand, |political notability is a clear |ipso facto rule, and she is not politically notable.  On the other hand, the application of |general notability to political candidates is as difficult as the application of |general notability to any biography, which is difficult.  There are two extremes that we should avoid with regard to applying general notability to political candidates.  The first is to deny any general notability for political candidates, and only let them in if they satisfy another special notability guideline.  The other extreme to avoid is to make it too easy for candidates to pass general notability based on their campaign publicity.  The basic question is, in my opinion, one of when do we allow someone to be notable by being famous for being famous?  It should not be easy to be covered in Wikipedia by being famous for being famous, but a very few celebrities do pass that test (even if they are not known for anything else).  Similarly, it should not be easy to be covered as someone who is famous for being a famous political candidate.  There are only a few people who pass that test.  Annamie Paul is one of them.  Weak Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:IPSOFACTO||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)