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.
Candidates who loose the primary election for state legislature are the epitome of non-notability. In this person's case there was one incident that received flash in the pan news coverage and nothing more. This does not merit an article. We should have an article on the person who actually was elected to the state legislature in that election, but that is independent from this case where we very clearly should not have any article
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. People do not get articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries, but there's no other evidence here that he has a strong claim to either having preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy or passing the
ten year test for enduring significance.
Bearcat (
talk)
01:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Article doesn't establish what was notable about their career otherwise. Ran in election, lost, then back to oblivion. Not notable.
Oaktree b (
talk)
02:49, 25 October 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.