Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Henick (2nd nomination)
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Jonathan Henick
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jonathan Henick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested G4. Are nominees actually notable? Post holders, perhaps. Primary sources, previously deleted at AfD as "Subject fails
WP:NPOL" by Muboshgu, and I see no reason to differ here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I fail to see how significant work in diplomacy and within the State Department doesn't meet WP:GNG. How is that a White House nomination that was just made yesterday (used as a source) somehow failed verification from a previous AfD from two years ago? Obviously those same sources didn't exist two years ago, but that's the rationale being used? Makes no sense to me. User:Liz did suggest that "this might change his status as a POL" Snickers2686 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
- well this is an weird argument. Passing GNG means to have been discussed significantly in multiple reliable independent & secondary sources. This isn't found here. Hence the subject fails GNG. ─ (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Comment So draftify until confirmation then? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
- If there's consensus to do so, I wouldn't disagree. ─ (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
- If there's consensus to do so, I wouldn't disagree. ─
- Comment So
- well this is an weird argument. Passing GNG means to have been discussed significantly in multiple reliable independent & secondary sources. This isn't found here. Hence the subject fails GNG. ─
- Delete merely being a candidate doesn't make one notable and I see no coverage of this person outside of press releases. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails GNG and NPOL at the moment. A case of TOOSOON as well. ─ (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Delete: as per nom. and others. No matter of what... ]
- @WP:THREE looks like just an essay and not official policy, so I don't see how that applies. Now a WH press release isn't a reliable source? Since when? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Where did Hatchens say so? Primary sources do not help in establishing notability, though they are reliable and relevant to be cited for facts, whenever necessary. ─ (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)]
- @the Heymann Standard. I accept I am quoting essays, not the official policies. Still, somehow they fill in the gaps which are being discovered during the interpretations of basic guidelines, and they provide us an opportunity to generate much-required consensus. We all are here to help you out with this page, and a bit of cooperation from your end will surely add value to this ongoing process. - Hatchens (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)]
- @
- Where did Hatchens say so? Primary sources do not help in establishing notability, though they are reliable and relevant to be cited for facts, whenever necessary. ─
- Delete most career diplomats are not notable. Being an ambassador does not make one notable. Nothing here comes even close to suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment So what about draftifying until confirmation? Snickers2686 (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Even confirmation still wouldn't secure him as "inherently" notable, if you still couldn't get him over ]
- Delete. Diplomats are not automatically notable just because government press releases and staff profiles on the State Department's own website confirm their diplomatic posts — the government, after all, is a diplomat's employer, meaning that government sourcing isn't independent coverage. Diplomats have to pass WP:GNG on media coverage that analyzes their diplomatic work, not just cursory verification that they've been appointed to diplomatic positions in sources self-published by the appointer. He certainly might pass GNG in the future — although there's still no guarantee of that — but nothing here establishes that he would already pass GNG today. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2022 (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.