Deletion of Peter Jacob

Comment: The person does easily pass  despite losing an election.  And no, in-depth press coverage by the national and state press do ''not'' always cover every candidate.  In fact, there were many congressional races when a candidate of one party or another was the overwhelming favorite with their opponents not even getting support from their own party who did not receive GNG passing coverage. For example Congressional Democratic incumbent Nancy Pelosi's most recent Republican opponent Bob Miller did not receive GNG-passing in-depth coverage, despite running against such a high profile candidate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per , , and Bearcat's careful argumentation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Failure of  and his non-political activity is not notable. There is one, just one article about him before his candidacy http://www.nj.com/suburbannews/index.ssf/2010/12/winter_shelter_warms_union_cou.html. And really the article isn't about him, its about an organization he coordinates. And the article is not even in a notable publication, its in the town newspaper, even though it is hosted on the star-ledger's website, it was never published in that paper.  At the top of the page it says "suburban news" which is basically just the local town newspaper (I guess the Star Ledger owns it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: as even though he did not win the election, enough significant independent sources exist to qualify for . —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 https://www.dailyrecord.com/story/news/2016/05/30/jacob-pursuing-american-dream-straight-congress/85033046/ here and http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/peter-jacob-hoping-to-win-new-jersey-congressional-seat-with/article_d22f273a-12f7-11e6-8637-a386b887d48d.html here and https://www.insidernj.com/jacob-nabs-justice-democrats-nomination-crowded-cd7-democratic-field/ here and http://observer.com/2017/06/peter-jacob-leonard-lance-2018-midterms/ here and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swastikas-reported-outside-home-of-peter-jacob-new-jersey-congressional-candidate/ here and http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2016/10/congressional_candidates_square_off_on_business_th.html here and elsewhere. The nominator's argument that ''All of the coverage surrounding him is about his campaigns and he doesn't therefore meet '' 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2018, as per the standard outcome as discussed in , per my comments above. All of the coverage of the subject appears in the context of the election. It takes a lot of effort to keep Wikipedia an area free from becoming a repository of campaign information. In the version I am reading, there are quite a few statements that are positive spin from the candidate or their supporters, that are either unreferenced or creep into original research. Much of the information on the existing page, can live in the page about the election (either 2016 on 2018
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES)