Deletion of Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination)

Comment: nbsp; The evidence is solid that this topic passes WP:GNG.&nbsp; WP:GNG is part of "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..."&nbsp; None of the notability arguments here have appealed to either "WP:IAR" or to the "worthy of notice" clause., theyThe deletion arguments that mention WP:GNG either claim without suitable evidence that WP:GNG fails, or they don't attempt to argue against it.&nbsp; It is a pattern seen before at rticles for deletion/Mar%C3%ADa Viramontes that because of the footnote in WP:POLITICIAN that has sourcing requirements that exceed WP:GNG for local councilmen, local councilmen fail WP:POLITICIAN and pass WP:GNG.&nbsp; But as I understand it this is why editors came up with WP:GNG so that we didn't have to face arguments about whether or not some given topic was "good enough" based on editors' personal criteria, to merit a place in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article.&nbsp; WP:GNG in spite of its flaws is more objective than, "local politician", "local newspaper", "local coverage", "minor politician", "local paper", "local councilwoman", "local councillor", and "local council member"; which are versions of "I Don't Like It", "Just unencyclopedic", and "Just not notable".&nbsp; Moving on, as I quoted above from the lede of WP:N, passing WP:GNG is not in turn a requirement that we keep this topic as a stand-alone article.&nbsp; There has been room here to have had a discussion about the balance between a topic that passed WP:GNG with 80 sources before she decided to run for the California assembly; the relevance of WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, and WP:CRYSTAL to the newer additional hundred sources; and the benefits of identifying a new list article target for this multiply-notable persona.&nbsp; But such a discussion has not developed.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: spaced ndash}} This topic is presently passing both  ''and'' , in which this person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:GNG)