Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Benn (3rd nomination)
I agree that for a normal politician, she would not normally meet |the politics-specific inclusion criteria. However, she is not a normal politician, as part of one of the UKs most notable political families. With being part of this comes reliable sources that satisfy ; it is my view that the GNG must take precedence over . The core principle of GNG is: if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. These sources: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-life-in-the-day-emily-benn-kj8z3z8hg2p, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7011922.stm, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pandora/benns-granddaughter-to-stand-at-the-next-election-403411.html, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28389521, all from major UK news outlets clearly show her notability as required by the GNG. The issue raised on inherent notability is not an issue here. From the specific :  Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. As shown above, sources do exists so we can't claim that the article fails  as verifiable evidence has shown to the contrary. The high quality sources exist, and so does the notability
— User:TheMagikCow, 15:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:NPOL||WP:ITSA||WP:ITSA (Wikipedia:Notability)