Deletion of George Lee (British politician) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Only one significant source (''The Daily Telegraph''), possibly also ''The Independent'' (behind a pay barrier) + local press (the links given don't work, but it's possible to find others) - not enough to meet . It is also worrying that it reads like an election leaflet (with a UK general election pending, I think this is an abuse of Wikipedia) and that the article creator is a personal friend of the subject. If he is elected, then by all means he'll deserve an article, until then it should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  and very borderline .  Not enough to justify keeping in my opinion.  Potentially move to
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  and olitician. The article reads like an election statement by or on behalf of the candidate. It is full of unsupported spin (public relations)|spin and propaganda. This is a misuse of Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:P)

Comment: the first two sources don't work, but seem to be a local paper. Looking at the others, I don't see notability apart from his candidacy, and I do not agree that candidates from major parties should automatically be considered notable. As pointed out above, it is not easy in the UK to define "major party", and on any acceptable definition there would be well over 2,000 candidates included. Many of them are standing in unwinnable seats, to show the flag and gain experience; some may go on to get elected later, but many will drop back into obscurity. In the present case, Lee is undoubtedly from a major party, but one of the sources cited says "''The seat is not even on the Conservatives' winnable list''". If he does well he may be selected for a winnable seat in five years' time, but that's 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: the first source in the article doesn't seem to be working right, so I can't verify that one. But the other two non-primary sources are enough that this gentleman passes the |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The sources - a combination of incidental and local coverage and a puff piece in the Telgraph - do not in my view add up to significant coverage. If this guy passes  (which only gives a ''presumption'' of notability), its very marginal, and I think the clear failure to meet  and unlikelihood that he will win election weigh more strongly towards a delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)