Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Ehrlich

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 keep. —Darkwind (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ehrlich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - past and current candidate for Congress who has never before achieved political office or done anything else of note. Ansh6 6 6 07:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because she hasn't won an election doesn't mean she's not notable. I see enough independent coverage to establish her notability. Tiller54 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2014 as she fails WP:POLITICIAN and the coverage of her is run-of-the-mill for similar unelected candidates. We should not be hosting what is essentially a campaign brochure but instead should cover her candidacy in a neutral overview article describing all candidates in the race. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major party candidate for a national level office. We could save a good deal of trouble by simply accepting this as a criterion, and I continue to urge it. But in any case it would be merge and redirect. No argument against redirect was given by the nom, probably because there is no rational argument. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, most of the article deals with things that she's done not related to running for Congress, but I can't see any clear notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Also, her candidacy spans multiple elections, so there's no real clear target. I'm never opposed to a redirect when possible, I just didn't think of it at the time, and looking at it closer makes it seem unhelpful. Ansh6 6 6 22:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2014. I would support opening up DGG suggestion in a proper forum, but I fear that there will not be an easy line that could be drawn about what constitutes a "major party candidate," especially in contexts outside the United States or other democracies with a stable party structure. Enos733 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2013 (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.