Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Herzog


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Herzog

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL as a current primary candidate and does not pass WP:GNG as Herzog is not notable outside of his campaign. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. Has been covered outside of his Congressional run with his work with the Andrew Yang Presidential Campaign. Other notable campaign staffers have Wikipedias, so there is precedent. His Congressional run is notable too and has appeared on Fox News, The Young Turks and Cheddar to discuss his ideas. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any reliable coverage of his time on the Yang campaign except for in relation to his primary bid, which is not unusual for campaign coverage (former X staffer announces run for Y office is an incredibly common headline), so he is likely not independently notable as a staffer. I am also struggling to find reliable sourcing other than passing mentions of his campaign outside of the coverage he received in the aftermath of his initial announcement to run (it would appear that challenger Lindsey Boylan has received the bulk of the coverage since then). Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He's received plenty of coverage before and after announcing his campaign.      Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * People are not notable just because their name gets mentioned in coverage whose core subject is somebody else — he has to be the subject of the coverage, not just glancingly namechecked in coverage of Yang, to be notable for working for Yang. And YouTube videos self-published by "Nerds for Yang" are not notability-supporting sources, nor is anything on Inquistr or anything self-published by a non-media organization. So no, zero of these links count for anything. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He was just written about in the Jerusalem Post. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Campaign coverage doesn't speak to permanent notability unless it shows a strong reason to treat his candidacy as much more enduringly special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He's already received coverage from his work with Yang. He's been covered internationally including in the Times of Israel and nationally by Fox News. Not just local or trivial coverage. ,
 * Those sources are not covering him in the context of working with Yang; they are mentioning his work with Yang as background information in coverage being given in the context of his Congressional candidacy. That's not the same thing, and it is not how you establish that he has preexisting notability for working with Yang. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if that's the case is international coverage not a sign of notability? This isn't coverage just after his announcement, either. He's receiving coverage in Israel and from Fox News just this week.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. People are not automatically notable just for being candidates in elections they have not won — the main notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for it. Other than that, the only two other ways a candidate can be notable without winning the election first are if (a) he was already notable enough for other reasons independent of the candidacy that he would already have qualified for an article even if he weren't running for office (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) a substantive reason can be demonstrated why his candidacy would be much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). But neither of those is being demonstrated here at all: six of the ten footnotes are primary sources, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him to any non-trivial degree, and one is from a user-generated news aggregator, which means eight of the ten sources are not valid support for notability at all. And of the two that are from legitimate media, both of them are just covering his initial announcement of his candidacy, which is a kind of source that every candidate in every election everywhere can always show — so it does not represent enough coverage to exempt him from having to win the election first, because it just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anybody who has two or more" — it tests for the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about Herzog, the geographic range of how widely he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting covered for, and is not just n=>2. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NPOL, fails GNG (per depth of coverage). No sense in explaining further as Bearcat covered it very well. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.