Deletion of Anne Marie Waters

Comment: as per my comments above, I found this to be a flawed and counterpolicy nomination, one that misinterpreted our policies and guidelines.  I think we should be entitled to expect nominators to fully and fairly comply with .  The nomination merely describes Waters as a ''"failed candidate"''.  Woah!  Her party would not allow her to run as a candidate in 2016.  Surely being barred from running as a candidate is more notable than being allowed to run, and then losing?  ''The Independent'' wrote: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anne-marie-waters-ukip-faces-deselection-paul-nuttall-sharia-watch-a7708051.html ''"Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said the views espoused by Ms Waters, who appeared on far-right Swedish online platform Red Ice TV this month, made him feel “uncomfortable” and the party's national executive committee would be looking at her record later on Friday."''  What this is, is International coverage.  Ms Waters is notable enough to be interviewed in foreign countries.  She has an International reputations, had one in 2016.  Nominator seemed to assert the consensus at  was a blanket disallowal of the use of Breitbart.  No offense, but I didn't take this assertion at face value.  I found there is a long discussion going on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Breitbart_again|at RSN, right now.  Reasonable people there are saying the same thing {{U|Warofdreams}} said: ''"Breitbart is a reliable source for the views of its contributors"''.  Breitbart's writers have written about her on numerous occasions.   {{U|AusLondonder}} could you lay out your specific concerns about using Breitbart references in this article, at RSN?  Could you lay out specific concerns about each Breitbart article that covered Waters, on the article's talk page?  Even if we preclude the 2017 coverage, and all Breitbart coverage, https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Anne+Marie+Waters%22+-site:breitbart.com&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:12/31/2016,sbd:1&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8kPSrg9zUAhXn7IMKHYMDBvAQpwUIHw&biw=1093&bih=504&dpr=1.25 this google news search tosses up coverage of Waters in multiple contexts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:RSN)

Comment: article passes . Sure it needs improvement and expansion as well a perhaps a shift in tone but overall but that can all be improved upon and I would say the subject is by far notable enough for Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)