Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Hoyos (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee#District 2 per deletion by redirection. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 08:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Hoyos

[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)

may not pass ~~wp:POLOUTCOMES~~ wp:NPOL; unsuccessfully running for office is not usually grounds for notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee#District 2. The policy you should be applying here is WP:NPOL, not WP:POLOUTCOMES. POLOUTCOMES supplements WP:NPOL. It is not official policy. KidAd • SPEAK 22:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and for a non-winning candidate to get in the door she must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her a Wikipedia article regardless of her victory or defeat in the election, or (b) demonstrate and reliably source a credible reason why her candidacy should be viewed as significantly more notable than the norm for unsuccessful candidates, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But this demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above, being only an unsuccessful candidate does not normally qualify you for notability. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources doesn't make him pass WP:NPOL. Hulatam (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean her. KidAd • SPEAK 19:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have decided that unelected candidates for political office are not notable for that. About the only exceptions we have given are candidates for US senate, and even then the vast majority of failed candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the above discussion is only regards her as a political nominee, does her activities in water industry meet criteria, or be capable of improvement.Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't automatically notable just for being heads of organizations, either. She would still have to demonstrably pass WP:GNG on that basis to be able to claim notability on that basis, and we can still only consider sources that are shown to exist rather than simply theorizing that GNG-worthy sourcing might exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 14 March 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.