Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Podhorzer


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael Podhorzer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to pass GNG. Sources are not about him, just passing quotes from him in broader refernce to AFL CIO. Or are just PR bumpf from the AFL CIO website. Pipsally (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Thanks Bubbly Snow   &#x1F4AC; 17:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. or at least dradtify. Ignoring the initial comment, the position is in practice a notable one in Americna politics.  DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * THe office might be notable, but that doesn't make the office holder notable.Pipsally (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable Jewish guy with serious influence, subject of non-trivial sources. --2A00:CA8:A1F:B0AE:E5A2:53BA:7936:F860 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm unable to find enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV, most are quoting the individual or brief mentions. Unless there's a policy that states that his position establishes notability, doesn't appear to meet GNG. Redoryxx (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Probably notable without it, but I'd say the TIME article nudges him over the top. —Morning star (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced comments moved from top of page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Complainer Pipsally is clearly disingenuous in invoking on Feb 8th the notoriety requirement, right after seeing an extensive article in Time.com, released on Feb. 4th. Time magazine is one of the mainstays of American press, established in 1923 and with print circulation of over 2 million. Indeed, the article sorely needs an update beyond 2012 references and should be expanded. So just say that, by calling it a stub or otherwise drawing attention to it, rather than launching this feeble and likely politically motivated attempt to have it deleted. Telling is the fact that the second voice for deletion, user BubblySnow, is labeled at a sockpuppet of a banned user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:47D0:7660:C872:3760:781C:AB5A (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Don’t delete this page. Podhorzer is one of the greatest heroes of all time. He saved democracy in the US per the recent Time magazine article. His contributions should be celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.39.208 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

First and foremost, do not delete this post. I write this in relation to an article that drove me to look Mr. Podhorzer up. It is in the Feb 15th, 2021 (needs verification) issue of Time magazine which places Mr. Podhorzer as the "architect" of a systematic strategy to maintain democracy in the United States, this in the face of the anti-democratic implications of the existence of Donald Trump. So if anything, he is a national hero. In fact, while reading the article the name that came to mind was that of Paul Revere, shouting his legendary warning about the British.

So please, please, do not delete this post. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4002:AFD0:1D89:A946:A885:FEBD (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 February 2021 (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.