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. Kurykh (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Beattie-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject was a candidate in an election and lost. Other coverage is trivial Kingbird1 (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: In the future, she may become more notable, but for the time being, she doesn't have much notability. bojo | talk 13:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I put a Prod notice on this article soon after it was created last April, with the rationale "Neither the subject's place on a candidate list nor listed positions are sufficient for the WP:POLITICIAN or broader WP:BIO notability criteria.". The Prod was removed by the article creator on the basis of newspaper predictions that her party would obtain a list seat, which would go to her, in the then-forthcoming election. This WP:CRYSTAL prediction didn't happen. That leaves the question of whether her subsequent media activity is sufficient to establish any encyclopaedic notability: I think not. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see numerous Gnews sources relating to both the election run and her other activities. WP:GNG Is established by multiple sources in good pubs. Article needs a trim to be less promotional.198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. May become notable, but now WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Local coverage of local elections always exists, so it falls under WP:ROUTINE and an unelected candidate for political office does not permanently clear WP:GNG just because of that coverage alone — to attain notability on the campaign coverage itself, it would have to be shown that her campaign coverage had exploded far out of proportion to what any candidate for office could always show, such as what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010. Absent that, the only other way to get her in the door is to show that she already cleared a Wikipedia notability standard for some other reason independent of her candidacy itself — but nothing here demonstrates that either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete defeated candidates are not notable for that, and these is no other coverage of anything else that would show she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NPOLITICIAN. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (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.