Deletion of Irma Anderson

Comment: One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that  has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: She sails past the  due to the significant coverage she has received for her political roles since the mid 90s. That trumps all these arguments back and forth about her "importance" - not a factor we care about on Wikipedia. It's all about the sources, and she's received plenty of newspaper inches. It would make no sense to delete this biography
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: She fails to meet  and no evidence has been provided of the alleged significant press coverage. Politicians are not auromatically notable and certainly not notable for something someone thinks they might have heard her say
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Before yet another person points out how many Google hits this person has, they may want to re-read , particularly Wikipedia:PEOPLE#Invalid_criteria|'Invalid criteria' which specifically says
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PEOPLE)