Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flourette Ketner

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flourette Ketner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed by the article creator with no changes made to the article. The original reason still stands: Fails WP:NPOL Dammitkevin (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot show and properly source that she was already eligible for an article for some other reason besides her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability from the election itself. Every candidate in any election could always show as much sourcing as has been provided here, so candidates are not granted an automatic WP:GNG pass just because some campaign coverage exists. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins the seat, but nothing stated or sourced here earns her an article just for being a candidate in an election she hasn't won yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having done some research and thinking on notability, I concur with you that the article's subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia as of now. Though creating it gave me some valuable experience with the markup language, so it wasn't all for naught. LookingGlassEye (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for US state legislatures are almost never notable, and there's no claim this candidate is unusually notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2017 (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.