Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janeese Lewis George
obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. '''Draftify''' also acceptable. The fact that she's currently running unopposed is not, in and of itself, an exemption from having to pass  the normal way — things ''can'' still happen that can still cause an unopposed candidate to never actually assume the office at all: even unopposed candidates ''have'' actually been forced to resign for health or political scandal reasons, or died before election day, and thus ''never'' actually assumed the office they were running for. So unopposed on the ballot or not, she still has to actually ''hold'' the seat, not just be a candidate, before she actually qualifies for an article. And no, the fact that campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself a -based exemption from having to pass , either: campaign coverage of ''every'' candidate in ''every'' election ''always'' exists, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would be inherently meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it anymore. So to argue that a candidate is somehow more special than other candidates, it is not enough to show that campaign coverage existed: what's necessary is to show that ''even'' if she dies or resigns before election day and thus ''never'' actually assumes the office at all, her candidacy has still somehow become ''so'' uniquely important that people will ''still'' be looking for information about it |in 2030 ''anyway
— User:Bearcat, 18:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:NPOL||WP:10YT (Wikipedia:Notability)