Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Gonzalez

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Gonzalez

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

Unsuccessful candidate in a Texas House election last year. The sources I'm finding are simply brief mentions of her political run, like this one from Texas Monthly. Happy to withdraw if there is evidence that she meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for state house who loose the general election are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found one post-election article with significant coverage of her career [1] it can be added to a new article if she runs again. For now, however, article is a campaign bio of a losing candidate, with no other claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and nothing else in this article is strong enough to get her over another inclusion guideline instead of the one for politicians. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON -- with the proviso to re-create the article when she becomes more notable. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (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.