Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Kennedy
and if nominator is just generally curious about whether "this is a typical case or an exception", they could have asked on the talk page rather than gone to AFD.  Yes, many mere ''candidates'' for office aren't notable.  Nowhere is it claimed that ''all'' candidates for office aren't notable, however.  As ProcrastinatingReader in the linked Annamie Paul deletion discussion mentioned, life is not consistent here: one failed candidate might have a ton of media references, and another might have very little.  There's a reason for this: most non-notable candidates are nobodies running for the wrong party in "safe" districts where everyone knows they will lose.  Kennedy won a hotly contested primary in a rare swing district that both already has and will be the focus of a lot of attention due to Jeff Van Drew's party switch, making NJ-2 one of the most media-followed House districts, and likely a campaign target for both parties in November.  Even if she isn't ultimately elected, she may well be a "notable loser" a la Christine O'Donnell-in-2008.  Also, yes, notability is not inherited, but marrying into the Kennedy clan does guarantee a certain amount of news coverage.  Passes  in spades, per sources in article, and even if you thought it was borderline,  C2 would indicate giving the article more time would be advised.  As a final note, the previous status quo for Ms. Kennedy was to redirect the title to her husband's article and cover her campaign there - despite the fact that she's the one running in the race, not her husband.  It's not 1930 anymore, we should cover Ms. Kennedy on her own merits
— User:SnowFire, 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Notability)