Deletion of Mad Cow-Girl

Comment: Even measuring the topic (unnecessarily) against the |basic notability guideline for people, we find that the article more than qualifies:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject…If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then '''multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability'''; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis added). The subject has coverage in no less than seven major British news outlets referenced in the article, for at least one of which she is the primary topic of an article.http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/comment/newspaper-opinion/2008/06/14/by-election-is-a-freak-show-86908-20606700/ By any measure, the outcome here is obvious
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Forget Google, the article makes no claim to notability. Running for office doesn't satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Have we lost our minds? The whole point behind the |notability guideline was to ensure that non-stub articles could be written in a way such that the content was verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Here we have a non-stub article whose content is thoroughly verified and neutral, and you are opining that it be ''deleted'' because it supposedly fails a sufficient but not necessary condition for its ''achieved'' state? |Absurd
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IAR)

Comment: coming late, judging current state of article) Accepting it is |based on a single current event, I think she is just about notable in this election in terms of |the notability standard for candidates. What tips the balance for me is the presence of a 'political career' if it can be called that, the profile of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party|OMRL (whose article by the way needs some serious work), and her role in this election, which is seeing her being cast in |sources as a credible candidate in a two horse loony race, rather than just the usual joke also ran. And with a centralised page of her own, at least the repeat insertions of her info across multiple other articles can be cut down to |the appropriate length
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:RS||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Please bear in mind the fact that the article has undergone significant improvement during the course of this AfD, that early !votes in this AfD should be interpreted in this light, and that at minimum meets the |the Heymann standard. Sincerely
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: Simply not notable like many of these candidate articles. Completely fails to meet criteria under otability for inclusion and is not prominent in own party
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)