Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lib Peck
Borough councillors are not handed an automatic free pass over  #2 just for existing (no, not ''even'' in cities like London where the main citywide councillors ''do'' get that). She could still qualify for an article if she could be |reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to make her a special case, but that's not what the sources here are showing — there are |primary sources (the borough council's own website, her own LinkedIn, a corporate licensing directory), there are local blogs and local community weeklies, and there was an invalid  reference to another Wikipedia article, but there is ''no'' evidence being shown of even ''one'' source that would even ''start'' her down the path of passing 
— User:Bearcat, 15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOL||WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:CIRCULAR||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)