Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simcha Eichenstein


 * 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. As E.M. Gregory has copied this to draft, the mainspace version is not necessary at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Simcha Eichenstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician. Being handpicked to run for a seat doesn't make him notable yet, let him win first. His various other jobs and entries doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting elected to office or not has little bearing on WP:GNG. Eichenstein is a long-time NY political operative mentioned in WP:RS as also being the first Hasid to run for statewide office in the U.S., clearly not a case of WP:ROTM. WP:CRYSTAL allows us only to point out that Eichenstein is running essentially unopposed with all the Hasidic rebbes promising him the bloc vote. His campaign finance officer, a highly visible community leader, was arrested on charges of rape, leading to additional coverage of Eichenstein in a major NY daily. StonyBrook (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - looks like it meets GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. "Looks" apparently can be deceiving. There are literally "thousands" of "long-time NY political operatives". Someone "being the first" might be notable to Ripley's but not an encyclopedia recording of possible future events. GNG would certainly be a factor, especially concerning getting elected to a notable office, or else we can delete five of the seven election related sources. While we are on the "political" aspect of notability, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is too soon to even consider. Create the article and wait and see is not included in any policy or guideline. Because there is newspaper mentioning of a subject does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on it. We don't list every politician running for state office (there will be some local or state coverage) and throwing in religious sensationalism is not encyclopedic nor the scandal of an acquaintance. People "notable" for one future possible event does not count. NOTE: The New York Magazine might be reliable but what does the long "soap opera" addition attached to a reference, have to do with the price of tea in China, notability, or the subject? The reference "Are Liberal Jewish Voters a Thing of the Past?" looks like we are advocating for voter turnout. Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN does not exclude unelected politicians if they are notable. There may be thousands of political operatives but there is only one Hasid who is the first to run for statewide office in the U.S.. WP:TOOSOON refers only to a subject that has no RS. The scandal content is not included in the current version of the article. BLP1E doesn't apply here because the article isn't about an event but a person. The New York Magazine reference only contains the relevant quote connecting Eichenstein and his wife to the apprehension of Leiby Kletzky's killer. The "Liberal Jewish Voters" New York Times article that mentions Eichenstein, before he was a candidate, if anything seems to be lamenting the growing political power of the right-leaning Hasidim – certainly not advocating voter turnout. StonyBrook (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete he's not notable outside his campaign; likely WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer  talk  11:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He was mentioned previously in The New York Times as a rising star and in New York Magazine as a participant in an internationally covered incident. TooSoon refers to a subject that has no RS, this does. StonyBrook (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming we're discussing the same source, the NYT mention was literally one sentence. That's not significant coverage. He'll probably pass WP:NPOL soon, though. SportingFlyer  talk  06:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NOR and no WP:COI. StonyBrook (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete Obviously non-notable local candidate who may well become a non-notable local politician, but at present is the subject of routine local coverage. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Eichenstein was covered over a span of many years in multiple reliable sources per WP:SUSTAINED, specifically being called a "well-known Hasidic political operative" in 2011 by New York Magazine, a "political wunderkind" in 2014 by The New York Times and a "front-runner" in his present first political campaign by the New York Daily News. What is so 'obviously non-notable' about him? Is an atypical politician serving in a 'local' state-level legislative body unnotable? Usual coverage of a local pol consists of things like cutting ribbons and making speeches. Eichenstein does plenty of that, but the coverage cited in the article came about through accusations of rape (directed against a staffer). Is that 'routine?' StonyBrook (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That NYTimes citation is good. I just ran a news archive search on his name for articles published before January 2018, and turned up a little coverage of his work as Mayor DeBlasio's Albany lobbyist (Kids suffer as pols fight Blaz hit day-care-safety bill; Smith, Greg B. New York Daily News; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]26 June 2016: 4.)  But that's all I am finding and it's not enough.  We have a longstanding policy that to keep a candidate article, there has to be accomplishments and sourcing that would have supported notability even before they ran for office. You can see a very similar discussion going on about another Brooklyn legislative race, Articles for deletion/Julia Salazar.  I suggest that you copy this article into your user space, and bring the article back after he wins a seat in Albany.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Similar but not equal. Eichenstein has been in the news longer, but Salazar received a larger spike in coverage. Even so, she seems to have been damaged severely due to her credibility issues, precluding any realistic chance of her winning. On the other hand, Eichenstein the shoo-in candidate seemingly passes WP:10YT and WP:POLOUTCOMES, so far as his candidacy being the first of something is concerned. StonyBrook (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Draftify, Move to user space as per my comment above, sources do not support notability for his pre-campaign notability, nor has coverage of him during campaign been extraordinary. However, he is very likely to be elected in November.  User:StonyBrook, would you be willing to have this moved to your user space?  You would be able to move it back to mainspace as soon as he gets elected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the need to place this article on a lazy susan for if Wikipedia is not paper? I understand your concerns about protocol and not setting bad precedent, but why not WP:IGNORE that since the article was not written as a puff piece or to increase the candidate's electoral odds? In that community they don't get their news from Wikipedia. It has been demonstrated above that the subject of the article was covered in RS and will pass NPOL soon. StonyBrook (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's assume he loses the election - he would not be notable per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL - and we cannot assume he will win per WP:TOOSOON. A redirect/draftify would be consistent with how we handle these sorts of cases. SportingFlyer  talk  21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From TOOSOON: "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." Note – Sources for the topic exist. "This applies to recent events, people, new products and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging." Note – Facts began emerging about Eichenstein in 2011. "It should be remembered that even in cases where a person might not meet the GNG, the GNG itself is not the final word. Editors are encouraged to also consider the topic-specific notability sub-criteria as set out in WP:Notability (people)", and "...the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field". Note – Eichenstein is unique as a groundbreaking Hasidic politician in the U.S. StonyBrook (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I accept your assertion, but being "the first" candidate in any category does not pass WP:POL unless there is a very large amount of SIGCOV. Thsre are lots of unique identity candidates every year in the U.S.  This year we have : "Alma Hernandez, millennial Mexican-American Jewish woman ..." running for the Texas legislature..   It's never enough, unless the sources are.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just copy-pasted this into my sandbox. He probably will get elected.  And it can go live after the November general election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2018 (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.