Deletion of Jen Perelman

Comment: 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 23. Not notable, , unsuccessful political candidate. However, there's no reason to delete, as it's a plausible search term
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL)

Comment: or redirect/merge per above based on  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  involved in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:INHERITED)

Comment: Fails ,  and . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:SIGCOV||WP:BIO)

Comment: 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 -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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:10YT)

Comment: to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida#District 23. Failed candidates rarely meet . Coverage in RS is mostly run of the mill campaign coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: 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  and deserve a page. If you oppose the candidate, you may feel the opposite. POL 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 y, 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  coverage starts post entry into their respective races? Luckily POL 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NPOL||WP:POINT||WP:RS||WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)