Deletion of Danielle Stella

Comment: It is unfortunate, but appears increasingly that the consensus disagrees with my analysis on the page. I feel it was worth a shot to create the page, because Wikipedia can always use with more BLPs of women, but I also anticipate that I did not study  well enough. As well, this is only my second created political article, and I have no present plans on continuing to make further political articles. (I specialize in music-related fare here). I am aware, at least, that, say, a mayor of a small, anonymous rural town would not make the cut on Wikipedia, unless if they have another reason to be Wiki-notable. Therefore, I'm okay with whatever decision comes about
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: As a candidate, fails . At this point, a redirect feels premature as it is unclear whether the subject will even be the Republican Party nominee for the position in 2020
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Her alleged fringe beliefs and alleged shoplifting add human interest to what would otherwise be a routine failure of  but I don't think they pass  and  respectively
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:FRINGE||WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — people need to ''win'' the election and thereby ''hold'' office to pass , and otherwise they have to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway. The coverage shown is not enough to get her over  in ''lieu'' of having to pass NPOL, either — it just makes her a , not a person who has passed the |ten year test for enduring significance. It is not our job to keep an article about every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle — we're writing the ''long'' view of history here, not the five-minute view of current newsiness, so GNG does ''not'' just count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses a certain arbitrary number, but rather it also tests for the ''context'' of what the person is getting coverage ''for''. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins, but nothing here adds up to a reason why she would already qualify to keep an article today. Also, sourcing anything to Facebook or Twitter is always a hard no
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E||WP:10YT)

Comment: Fails  as an unelected candidate, not enough non-campaign coverage to pass . Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)