Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jacob (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Consensus is that WP:POLITICIAN is not met J04n(talk page) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jacob

edit
AfDs for this article:
Peter Jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful candidate for political office that isn't notable otherwise. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And no, the volume of media coverage shown here is still not enough to make his candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy (a standard that isn't attained until you're approaching Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage and notoriety), because every candidate in every election everywhere could always show at least this much media coverage of the campaign. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL per Bearcat's sound explanation above. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 01:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale provided by Tomwsulcer in the first deletion discussion. To quote his argument word for word: "yes failed politician bio but passes the general notability guideline. As a reminder, the politician rule says Just being ... an unelected candidate ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and Jacob easily passes with in-depth coverage here and here and here and here and here and here and elsewhere. The nominator's argument that All of the coverage surrounding him is about his campaigns and he doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG is bogus -- it would be like saying that all of the coverage about Henry Ford was about his automobile business, therefore it doesn't count and he doesn't meet the GNG. Politicians get covered about politics; business people about business. Both Ford and Jacob are notable" I must add that I feel only two months between the closing of the first nomination as no consensus and the initiation of another deletion discussion seems rather quick. I am reminded of the January 2017 discussion to delete the article covering Evan McMullin with the rationale being that he was a failed candidate, but it closed rather quickly as a SNOW keep because the number of sources covering the campaign demonstrated notability. Vermin Supreme lost every election he ran for by a wide margin, being a clearly failed candidate (and a frivolous literal joke one at that) but the attention he received made him notable. Peter Jacob has received significant coverage in his current race and has received the endorsements of significant political action committees, proving notability. A notable stub article is still an article (though it's also worth noting that the article is well above stub rating). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that every candidate in every election always gets some media coverage in that context. But candidates are not inherently notable just for being candidates — so a candidate's basis for includability is not "the purely expected media coverage of the campaign itself exists", but either (a) "enough media coverage exists to deem this person's candidacy a permanent ten year test-passing special case over and above most other people's candidacies", or (b) "the sourcing demonstrates that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate per se". And no, endorsements don't assist a candidate's notability either, because again, virtually every candidate in every election can always tout endorsements by somebody. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Jacob_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=840384338"