Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Perelman


 * 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 Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida. After extended time for discussion, consensus is clear that this should not exist as an article. BD2412 T 02:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Jen Perelman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Normally, a defeated candidate for a primary election is non-notable. The question here is whether the local coverage of the campaign is sufficient in this case, and whether the inclusion of the material about the police report meets BLP. I have no fixed opinion, and leave it to the community.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, the only SIGCOV available is local coverage, and per my completely unsubstantiated personal criteria for political candidates that is not enough to establish notability. The police report stuff isn't even about her, it's about Wasserman Schultz. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I do believe the article meets the WP:N WP:RS WP:POV criteria. While as DGG notes, the candidate lost her primary, I haven't really seen that mentioned in any notability discussions so far. My understanding is that WP:N is about coverage in WP:RS. She did receive a fair amount of media coverage, including regional, national and new media. My understanding is that regional sources aren't automatically rejected as WP:RS. Florida's 2nd largest newspaper Sun Sentinel ran a profile on her. Perhaps someone can help with additional citations? Admittedly, I am biased, since I created/seeded the article :-) Stefania0 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)(Un-striking this !vote because article creator Stefania0 claims to be a housemate rather than a sock of Viktorpp. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC))
 * Redirect per NPOL and BLP1E, non-notable failed candidate, article created August 24 with "controversy" section to WP:COATRACK criticism of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * HouseOfChange I appreciate you taking the time to contribute to the article deletion discussion. However, your ad hominem about me is unseemly; or maybe I misunderstand, would you mind explaining? Stefania0 (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion discussion concerning an article, stick to the topic at hand. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gladly. And thank you for withdrawing the personal attack. I really do appreciate it.Stefania0 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete she was trounced in the primary, that is pretty much a sign of non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * John Pack Lambert She WAS 100% trounced in the primary. However, that has nothing to do with WP:N. If impact were a criterion, the celebrities who are famous for being famous, e.g. Kardashians, would never have a place on Wikipedia :-D Stefania0 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For political notability you need to actual hold office, not just run for one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply not true. WP:NPOL says a failed candidate is notable, as long as she meets WP:GNG, which requires only WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS.Stefania0 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida. Failed candidates rarely meet WP:NPOL. Coverage in RS is mostly run of the mill campaign coverage. Bkissin (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But they can meet WP:GNG, which requires only WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS to be considered WP:N. Run of the mill campaign coverage in WP:RS is still verifiable, reliable, independent coverage. Stefania0 (talk)


 * Delete or redirect/merge per above based on WP:POLOUTCOMES there is nothing here but an average lawyer with a losing campaign for the congressional seat for Florida's 23rd district seat. There is a lot of WP:INHERITED involved in the article. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Politics can be contentious, especially in election years. Hence, there's always passionate arguments about Wikipedia pages of political figures. If you support a candidate, you may feel they are WP:N and deserve a page. If you oppose the candidate, you may feel the opposite. WP:NPOL says candidates who have won, hold, or have held international, national, or state–wide office are automatically presumed to be notable - so for these candidates, notability is inarguable. For all other cases, it depends on community discussions and discretion. I think the key is to consider, without being WP:POINTy, how other candidates are treated in similar situations, esp. to honestly ask ourselves if we support the page, would we still do so if we opposed the candidate, and if we oppose the page, would we still do so if we supported the candidate? Do Andrew Yang or Amy McGrath or Michelle Caruso-Cabrera or deserve Wikipedia pages, considering they haven't won and all their significant independent WP:RS coverage starts post entry into their respective races? Luckily WP:NPOL offers some guidance: 1. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable, even if they have never won an election or held an office or membership of a legislative body. More relevant to the case at hand, "Just being ...an unelected candidate for political office...can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." The key to WP:GNG is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Campaign related coverage of the candidate IS still coverage of candidate, as long as it is in independent sources. In the case of Perelman, the key question raised by DGG is really whether regional news sources can be considered WP:RS. I would contend it should. In fact, national news media, particularly cable news and network news, largely depend on regional media (in addition to agencies) since they've all downsized their local and beat reporters. Some of the biggest news, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein came from these local news media. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)(Un-striking !vote by IP that states he is a friend rather than a sock of Viktorpp and Stefania0. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC))
 * Replying to the speculation that people voting to delete do so because they dislike JP's political stance, several of those !voting "Delete" here have nevertheless !voted "Keep" at Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw, who also supports M4all and Green New Deal, and who also fails NPOL but (the difference!) Marquita Bradshaw is in fact notable per WP:BASIC while Jen Perelman is not notable by any standard. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Request People arguing for GNG or ANYBIO, can you please give 3 examples of in-depth RS coverage by independent sources (i.e. not her college newspaper)? Because here are the article's current strongest sources IMO:
 * JP is "an attorney who grew up in south Florida" and otherwise nothing except routine campaign stuff.
 * JP is "a wife, mother, attorney and co-chair of the juvenile justice committee for the Broward County League of Women Voters" and otherwise nothing except routine campaign stuff.
 * JP's responses to a campaign questionnaire.
 * JP "has a substantial online following but little cash to wage a traditional campaign fueled by advertisements and mailers" and the rest of the article is about how little grassroots enthusiasm she got.

HouseOfChange (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. And the fact that some routine local campaign coverage happens to exist is not a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get the exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. To qualify for an article, rather, a candidate has to pass one of two other tests: either (a) you can show that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason prior to standing as a candidate, or (b) you can show a credible reason to consider her candidacy a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for unsuccessful candidates, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. I call the former the Cynthia Nixon test, and I call the latter the Christine O'Donnell test — you can call them other things if you wish, but they're still the tests that a candidate has to pass to qualify for an article despite having lost the election. But neither of those tests have been passed here at all, so running in a primary that she lost does not make her permanently notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Point of order - WP:NPOL specifically says politicians don't have to win office to be notable. In fact one of the two automatic presumption of notability criteria is for politicians who have never won or held office or membership of legislature. Anyway, that's just the pedantic part of me - I think in actual fact Bearcat and I are not that far off - your Christine O'Donnell test clarifies you don't believe politicians HAVE to win to be notable, though some might interpret your first sentence that way (and admittedly, I did). I haven't seen your two tests applied (by these or other names) in other discussions, nor seen them in WP guidelines. Cynthia Nixon test is uncontroversial but somewhat immaterial to bios, because if the person were notable, they should already have a Wikipedia bio, irrespective of their run. On Christine O'Donnell test, you and I differ. There are plenty of campaigns that do not get any coverage, let alone regional-level coverage. As long as the losing candidate's campaign received significant independent and reliable coverage, they should get a page. I don't see why politicians need to meet a higher standard of notability than other people. Also, WP:NTEMP indicates that someone could become notable due to one single event (a campaign in case of politicians) and then stay notable forever. All that said, I am willing to be convinced. I am big on WP:AGF as well as acting in good faith. 130.226.41.9 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * addressed several possible notability criteria that JP could meet but, in his opinion, doesn't. WP:NPOL is a fall-back criterion for people who can't meet GNG aside from connection to a notable office. (Failing to win an election doesn't create such "connection.") If JP meets GNG, that is easy to show by listing independent RS (not Brand New Congress etc.) that discuss her "directly and in detail." I have looked for such sources but not found them. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say politicians can never be notable without winning — what I said is that because every candidate can always show some campaign coverage, the simple existence of that campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to hand a candidate a "GNG"-based exemption from NPOL. It is possible for a candidate to be notable without winning, and I clarified exactly what the paths to that happening are: either (a) they were already notable enough for other reasons that their failure to win the election is irrelevant because of their preexisting notability (Cynthia Nixon), or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much more special than everybody else's candidacies (Christine O'Donnell). It's not our job to maintain an article about everybody who ever ran for political office and lost, so people aren't automatically notable just because their name happened to have appeared on a ballot — to keep an article about a non-winning candidate, we need to see a reason why their candidacy was uniquely much more notable than most other candidacies, not just verification of the candidacy itself. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. There is insufficient coverage for a BLP article. Most of the current reference set is dependent coverage, of a failed bid. There is nothing of significance outside that.   scope_creep Talk  10:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida. Not notable, WP:MILL, unsuccessful political candidate. However, there's no reason to delete, as it's a plausible search term. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida.  // Timothy ::  talk  05:02, 6 September 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.