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) 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kitcher[edit]

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

Politician who was an unsuccessful candidate for parliament and has not held office above local level. Fails to meet WP:NPOL on those grounds. Article contains no other assertions of notability, and she has only incidental coverage in the non-primary sources. QueenCake (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidiates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for the national legislature are not notable for that fact in and of itself — but the article fails to demonstrate that she has any preexisting notability for any other reason, and the sourcing isn't even close to making her more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NPOL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:27, 7 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.