Deletion of Janeese Lewis George

Comment: Essentially an elected candidate as she is running unopposed. No point deleting an article just to recreate it in a couple of months. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: As per {{u|AlessandroTiandelli333}} and {{u|Enos733}}. Overall, {{u|FourViolas}} comment is the most complete and proper point in the whole of discussion. I, in particular, agree with his points on  and PERSON. Also, it is clearly stated in the notability guideline for politicians that the subject may still be notable even if he misses on the criteria (barely misses) which is subject to the group of wikipedians examining the notability to decide. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NPERSON)

Comment: The deletion rationale is explicitly foreclosed by the notability guidelines. The top of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, of which  is one, explicitly states that {{tq|'''Failure to meet these criteria is ''not'' conclusive proof that a subject should not be included;''' conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included}} (my bolding). Rather, as described in , the question of notability always comes down to : are there enough reliable sources to write a good article about this person
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. '''Draftify''' also acceptable. The fact that she's currently running unopposed is not, in and of itself, an exemption from having to pass  the normal way — things ''can'' still happen that can still cause an unopposed candidate to never actually assume the office at all: even unopposed candidates ''have'' actually been forced to resign for health or political scandal reasons, or died before election day, and thus ''never'' actually assumed the office they were running for. So unopposed on the ballot or not, she still has to actually ''hold'' the seat, not just be a candidate, before she actually qualifies for an article. And no, the fact that campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself a -based exemption from having to pass , either: campaign coverage of ''every'' candidate in ''every'' election ''always'' exists, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would be inherently meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it anymore. So to argue that a candidate is somehow more special than other candidates, it is not enough to show that campaign coverage existed: what's necessary is to show that ''even'' if she dies or resigns before election day and thus ''never'' actually assumes the office at all, her candidacy has still somehow become ''so'' uniquely important that people will ''still'' be looking for information about it |in 2030 ''anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:NPOL||WP:10YT)

Comment: Fails  in its purest sense. I don't see any mitigating reason, in the discussion abovem to keep it. It can be recreated in November, if needed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: WP:IAR. The subject does not pass  as an unelected candidate as Bearcat describes. And our general precedent encourages us discount local coverage of campaign coverage as  (the race is notable, the candidates may not be). However, common sense should apply in this situation and it's not worth the effort to split hairs and address all of the scenarios that could occur that prevent the subject from winning the election or taking office (write-in campaign, death, etc.). Unlike a solid keep, which would generally preclude revisiting the discussion, my vote is conditional or contingent on the candidate winning election
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:ROUTINE)