Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Walker (politician)
- 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. ✗plicit 01:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Alex Walker (politician)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Alex Walker (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at
Christine O’Donnell). But this doesn't pass those tests at all. Mpen320 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and Politicians. --Mpen320 (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This person has not even won the primary. Almost no candidates for US house who have won the primary but not a gneral election are notable, but those who have not won the primary at all are just plain not notable unless there is something else that shows notability, which there is not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Fails ]
- Delete per nom. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC).
- Delete. I will note that the nominator copied some wording that I often use when I list articles about unelected candidates for AFD, so I'm going to have to express myself a bit differently than my usual template here, but I assure y'all that Mpen320 is not me. Candidates indeed do not get to keep Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and need to show either evidence that they had preexisting notability for other reasons or a depth of coverage that would mark their candidacy out as much more special than usual, and this demonstrates neither of those things. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing here is already enough to qualify him for inclusion in Wikipedia today. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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.