Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Perelman
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
— User:DGG, 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:NPOL||WP:POINT||WP:RS||WP:NPOL||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)