Deletion of Sarah Thomson (politician)

Comment: through failure to meet  – I know that the repeat-create-edit-war isn't an issue here, but while I'm writing... it was ''pathetic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Not only fails  but also . At 7% support I don't really see the need to merge to the Toronto mayoral election, 2010|local election article. Merge if she climbs in the polls
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: to Toronto mayoral election, 2010 per Tznkai, and per . If any possible notability relates to that event, include it there in a brief background of her bio
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: She fails  via .  WLU's summary makes sense.  When she loses the election, we have: (1) Failed city council campaign, (2) Publisher of Women's Post, (3) Failed mayorial campaign.  There is no point in merging.  If you look at Toronto mayoral election, 2010|local election article, Sarah Thomson (politician) already has her own section which is basically a duplicate of this article.  There is little to no unique information to merge
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: or '''Merge''' - Fails both  and . Merge into municipal election article per Xeno
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails  and  (all coverage is for ). Any useful content could be merged to the election page, but the bio there should ''not'' be expanded---it's not meant to act as an entire bio page for each candidate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per Doc above or '''redirect and merge''' to the campaign page. The fact is that she seems to meet  by having several (at least 3 or 4 and probably more) news articles from different papers devoted specifically to her in the context of her camapaign.  #3 specifically notes that candidates can be notable under this. I realize that this might allow a lot of local candidates to be included, though, so there's obviously some tension in accepting  for political candidates
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: The article meets the |GNG by a landslide. Forcing it to jump through the additional hoop of  is pointless
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: In response to the recent expansion, I'm still going to stick with my original vote (delete or redirect/merge). Per Kww above, who says it nicely, the Keep arguments here seem to want to use coverage related to her being a politician in order to satisfy GNG -- even though that coverage still doesn't satisfy . This is a roundabout way of justifying inclusion. Just as  tells us whether a film really deserves its own article ''despite'' satisfying GNG, since there are too many pre-development films that receive coverage,  tells us when someone's political coverage warrants giving them an article, since even those barely in the running receive coverage. These are higher standards for inclusion for subjects of those topics
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:NOTFILM||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: per Tznkai, via ; once the election passes, if she doesn't get elected (and there's not much chance of that right now) you'll have two statements - she's a publisher of a low-notability magazine, and she tried for election (probably will fail).  That the page is being used as a political platform irks me.  Strip away the current political platform and what do you have?  Very little
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Quite difficult to decide whether to keep it or not, but apart from those references.  says that she hasn't won any awards or made a contribution world-widely recognised. Although she was a candidate in some sort of Toronto election, she only had 7% of support from the residents. I tried to link the Women's Post which is a non-notable magazine I suspect. If that article on the magazine was created, I will change my vote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: I do not think that she should be considered notable because of her politician status (because she doesn't, she fails ), but I do believe that she is notable because of the significant coverage about her that passes  and the fact that she is the founder and CEO of Women's Post, which generates more than enough notability for her
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: I think Xeno is making a good point.  She has multiple, reliable sources and appears to meet the basic  guideline.  Failing olitician does not trump .  Is another guideline at play like ?  What is wrong with the four newpaper articles cited
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:P||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The title may be wrong as much of the coverage isn't to do with her role as a politician but as a publisher, but the fact is that enough coverage exists to meet  by a large margin, regardless of any other guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: does seem to meet the |general notability guideline, especially as shown by the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Thomson_%28politician%29&action=historysubmit&diff=361948572&oldid=360971649 expansion.  Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and . Only real coverage seems to exist within the scope of the 2010 municipal election and the news coverage that follows.  As Xeno notes, a merge into a municipal election article would also work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: for now at minimum. While The only significant coverage seems to be related to the election, and the guidance at  suggests this as the appropriate course of action
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)