Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara H. Eastman

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kara H. Eastman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable politician who fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete losing candidate covered only in the context of her elections. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, only famous for losing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To qualify for an article without having to win the election, a candidate must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten them into Wikipedia regardless of their success or failure in any given election (which I call the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) be referenceable to such an unusually large volume, depth and range of coverage, far exceeding just what every candidate can always show, that she has a credible claim to being much, much more special than most other candidates in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). This article is showing neither of those things, however. Furthermore, it's evident that the middle initial is present in the title solely to bypass the fact that the uninitialed Kara Eastman already exists as a redirect to the election, pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Eastman (2nd nomination) — but just altering the title does not mean that the earlier discussion isn't still binding on whether she qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2021 (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.