Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination)
nbsp; The evidence is solid that this topic passes WP:GNG.&nbsp; WP:GNG is part of "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..."&nbsp; None of the notability arguments here have appealed to either "WP:IAR" or to the "worthy of notice" clause., theyThe deletion arguments that mention WP:GNG either claim without suitable evidence that WP:GNG fails, or they don't attempt to argue against it.&nbsp; It is a pattern seen before at rticles for deletion/Mar%C3%ADa Viramontes that because of the footnote in WP:POLITICIAN that has sourcing requirements that exceed WP:GNG for local councilmen, local councilmen fail WP:POLITICIAN and pass WP:GNG.&nbsp; But as I understand it this is why editors came up with WP:GNG so that we didn't have to face arguments about whether or not some given topic was "good enough" based on editors' personal criteria, to merit a place in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article.&nbsp; WP:GNG in spite of its flaws is more objective than, "local politician", "local newspaper", "local coverage", "minor politician", "local paper", "local councilwoman", "local councillor", and "local council member"; which are versions of "I Don't Like It", "Just unencyclopedic", and "Just not notable".&nbsp; Moving on, as I quoted above from the lede of WP:N, passing WP:GNG is not in turn a requirement that we keep this topic as a stand-alone article.&nbsp; There has been room here to have had a discussion about the balance between a topic that passed WP:GNG with 80 sources before she decided to run for the California assembly; the relevance of WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, and WP:CRYSTAL to the newer additional hundred sources; and the benefits of identifying a new list article target for this multiply-notable persona.&nbsp; But such a discussion has not developed.&nbsp
— User:Unscintillating, 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:A (Wikipedia:Attribution)