Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Andrews (physician)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Andrews (physician)

[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)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate. Not notable as either a physician or a politician, and all the coverage is routine for a candidate. St Anselm (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Carolina. St Anselm (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Indiana, and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, political candidates aren't inherently notable User:Let'srun 02:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination rationale. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failed political candidate and not notable otherwise. --Mvqr (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they lost — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they can properly demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have secured their inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than everybody else's candidacies. This demonstrates neither of those things, however, and since every candidate in every election always gets campaign coverage during the election, such coverage is not the stuff of a permanent WP:GNG pass in and of itself either. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2023 (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.