Deletion of Zach Paikin

Comment: let's be serious; this is a |run of the mill blogger and |Up and coming political activist. He's not notable per , and |the trend here has be to be increasingly restrictive, especially about |political biographies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:UPANDCOMING||WP:GNG||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: I don't see how he qualifies as notable under either  or Wikipedia:JOURNALIST
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: One reliable source - http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/03/18/why_i_quit_the_race_for_a_liberal_nomination_zach_paikin.html - is a good start, but we need multiple ones for /. If more independent, mainstream sources can be presented, he would meet the threshold for inclusion. Otherwise I'd recommend to userfy it; it's a good start and he may gain sufficient notability to merit an article in a year or two - no point in wasting this good start
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Per , a person does ''not'' qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being a ''candidate'' in a future election — and given that he ''withdrew'' his candidacy this week, he isn't even |verifiably ''that'' anymore, and ''all'' we can do is |crystal ball the possibility that he ''might'' change his mind again in the future, or run in a different election instead. It's not a question of "minimum age" — a ''newborn baby'' can be notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she manages to pass , and a 90-year-old person can be ''not'' notable enough for Wikipedia if he or she doesn't — rather, it's a question of minimum sourceable/notable ''accomplishment''. If he actually ''wins'' a future election, then he'll certainly qualify for an article at that time, but a person in politics (''regardless'' of their age) has to ''win'' election to a notable office (''not'' just ''run'' for one) to qualify for a Wikipedia article. ''Especially'' if that article is relying primarily on the person's own social media presence for sourcing; Facebook and LinkedIn are '''not''' |reliable sources for our purposes. We do not "owe" him anything on here, contrary to Stonepillar's assertions above — a person does ''not'' get to have an article on here until they can be |properly sourced as having ''accomplished'' something that gets them past one or more of our |notability rules. Having an article on Wikipedia is ''not'' an ''entitlement'' that anybody automatically gets just for ''existing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:V||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:N)