- 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 with some reluctance. Unfortunately the 'keep' arguments have no basis in Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Many non-notable authors have their books in many library collections (and all of them find their way into the Library of Congress). Contributions to books is also not an inclusion criterion. Any coverage he's received seems to be WP:ROUTINE. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Jacob Hornberger
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jacob Hornberger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability guidelines at WP:BIO. References are primary or related to the subject. Prod tag removed with edit summary that similar person has web page (see WP:WHATABOUTX), and that this subject may run for president. My Google news search doesn't provide reliable, secondary sources but mostly things he wrote, not substantial details about him. Ifnord ( talk) 16:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I am not seeing anything substantial in a search for RS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I would be very liberal in extending coverage to minority political viewpoints. Most of his boosk are self published by the foundation he founded, but some are held in a large number of libraries (The failure of America's foreign wars including by West Point;) and he has significant contribution to mainstream books,as a representative of his viewpoint ( Gun violence, Immigration : opposing viewpoints "U.S. military deployment" , Human Rights all by Greenhaven Press, aa part of Gale/Cengage) . DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this article is not reliably sourcing that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. The references are overwhelmingly primary sources, such as his self-published biographical sketches on the websites of directly affiliated organizations and pieces of his own bylined writing — exactly zero of the footnotes represent reliable sources writing about Jacob Hornberger as a subject. Conversely, several sources represent Jacob Hornberger writing content about other things — but he has to be the subject of a source, not the bylined author of it, for that source to count as support for his notability. People are also not exempted from having to have any media coverage just because they happen to be "representatives of minority viewpoints" — even there, the notability test still requires reliable sources to analyze and contextualize his significance as a representative of those viewpoints, so it still comes down to the fact that we're still batting zero for evidence of reliable sources. Bearcat ( talk) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable 3rd party political candidate. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I agree 100% with Ifnord and Bearcat. My own internet search totally corroborates their arguments. The subject clearly fails the WP notability test. Sal2100 ( talk) 18:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. Calibrador ( talk) 07:00, 21 September 2019 (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.