The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A lot of this discussion is repetition of arguments made in several similar nominations made by a sockpuppet. Some of those did lead to deletion despite the status of the nominator, but in this instance there is a decent (but not overwhelming) case that she has sufficient coverage beyond routine campaign activity. Given the initial nomination was contaminated and led to a lot of pro forma arguments that may not apply as well in this case, I'm closing this as no consensus, with no prejudice against any future nomination that can start on the right footing. RL0919 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Labchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NotButtigieg: WP:ROUTINE already was shown not to apply to people. ミラP 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the link you provided leads to WP:POLITICIAN, which make clear that political figures who have not held one of a number of specified offices need to have gotten "significant coverage" in the media. This political figure had NOT gotten such coverage.NotButtigieg (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 04:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missvain (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.