Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Kennedy


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Amy Kennedy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be reviewed by the community, as an article whose subject does not pass political notability as a candidate, and the subject did not have an article prior to becoming a candidate for Congress. A notability policy issue that needs to be addressed has to do with persons whose biographical notability is the result of the campaign. (It is also the result of her membership in the Kennedy family, but notability is not inherited.) A recent close remarked that political candidates are usually redirected if they are known only for their campaigns: See Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul. Is this a typical case or an exception? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep, 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 WP:GNG in spades, per sources in article, and even if you thought it was borderline, WP:BEFORE 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.  SnowFire (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To go into a bit more detail: Annamie Paul was effectively a third-party candidate (The Greens do win the very occasional election in Canada, but she wasn't competitive in her own district, garnering a mere 7% of the vote). Kennedy is a major party candidate, and not a "sacrificial lamb" candidate per above (e.g. a Democrat in a deep-red district or a Republican in a deep-blue district, which is most House districts these days, only ~100 of the 435 are really in contention).  Better examples would be other upset major-party primary winners, who do generally have articles (even if they eventually lose).  SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep More than meets WP:GNG as a political candidate. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 07:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep In light of the keep arguments for Articles for deletion/Angela Stanton-King the things such as Kennedy family, mental health advocate, and primary of national importance warrant a keep. At least, this should have been discussed as a proposed delete or a talk page before AfD per SnowFire's comment above. The fact that I was on the side of the Angela Stanton-King argument that "lost" does not change that consensus.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep on grounds that there are articles entirely about Kennedy in multiple national outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - While has been far more eloquent on the topic, the scope and breadth of national coverage that is undoubtedly about Kennedy clearly surpasses the Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject(GNG) plus above statements.Djflem (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to sufficient coverage in independant sources to pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable, and coverage just about being an candidate is not enough to establish notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey or Patrick J. Kennedy. is absolutely right on this one, though there are much better case studies for notability (or lack thereof) of candidates. Being married to a Kennedy and running for office are not enough to meet notability. Additionally, as  mentioned, the sources used to try and prove GNG are routine campaign coverage that any candidate would receive, including information from the subject's campaign website. The article is almost solely about her campaign, despite others suggesting that the subject is notable for her mental health advocacy, which gets one passing mention in the article. Definitely some WP:UNDUE concerns. If she wins in November, we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Does the subject of this article not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - and therefore has general notability?! steinwinde (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regional and national. Djflem (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can someone point to a similar case where a major party candidate (as in nominee) in a competitive congressional election had a BLP merged/deleted? jps (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Scott Wallace (politician)? He was technically a major party candidate and it was a district that "should" have been competitive, but he was an awful candidate (in a boring way, not a scandals way) and nobody cared about him.  No Afd just noncontroversially redirected.  Per above, the media isn't "fair" sometimes.  Kennedy's gotten 100x the attention Wallace did.  (And User:Muboshgu, who redirected Wallace, is the creator of the Kennedy article, so it's not a radical inclusionist vs. radical deletionist thing.)  SnowFire (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when the media pay attention, it seems understandable when Wikipedia does as well. Thanks for the example as I think it serves as an exception that proves the rule. In general major party nominees in competitive districts are going to end up being notable enough for a bio... and that should be discoverable through press coverage. jps (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, she passes GNG even if we completely disregard any and all coverage of her even remotely related to her campaign, meaning there is no WP:BLP1E problem. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient coverage, passes WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.