Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey M. Cohen


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey M. Cohen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear WP:NPOL fail as a candidate for a seat in a state legislature and does not seem particularly notable outside his campaign. GPL93 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Merely running for office does not make you notable, fails NPOL Reywas92Talk 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:CAE, this article should be considered, could warrant inclusion, and should not be deleted. Seattledude (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As the template at the top of the page indicates, WP:CAE is no longer considered relevant and hasn't been for over a decade. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, candidates for office who are not independently notable outside their campaign are generally considered non-notable unless they receive an inordinate amount of coverage (ex: Christine O'Donnell). Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per WP:NPOL. Unelected candidates generally don't get articles unless they meet WP:GNG. In this case, Cohen is a mere candidate. Lefcentreright  Discuss   08:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability other than being a political candidate. Does not meet NPOL or GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and above deletion arguments.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep . Comment Honestly, most of us don't appreciate the characterization of Cohen as "a mere candidate." Running for office is HARD, especially nowadays. Kudos to anyone brave enough to put themselves out there and be on the receiving end of public scrutiny.  That said, let's wait until the general and see if the candidate wins or not. Seattledude (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Living life is hard. We do not create articles for doing hard things. He is merely a candidate, candidates are not notable, officer holders in positions to make public policy are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember, you can comment as much as you want but you only get one vote. Unfortunately, being brave or doing hard work do not equate to notability. Again per WP:POLOUTCOMES, we generally do the opposite because if he wins he actually meets the standard but currently speaking he does not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The suggestion that being a candidate for public office makes someone notable is ludicrous and has been throughly discredited, even for more notable offices than state representative. In this case it is very clear that this position does not make one notable, and if we did keep articles on mere candidates we would turn Wikipedia into a platform for posting campaign literatures. There are upwards of 5,000 members of state legislatures just in the US, so keeping every article on every candidate who ever ran for state legislature is a truly unsupportable prospect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins. People are not permanently notable just for running as election candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. To make a candidate notable enough for an article without having to hold office first, it would be necessary to demonstrate that either (a) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before running as a candidate (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) he has a credible and substantive reason why his candidacy should be considered markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies for some reason that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). But neither of those have been passed, or even attempted, here. Obviously he'll get an article in November if he wins, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here already justifies an article today. Bearcat (talk) 12:34, 29 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.