Deletion of Jonathan Herzog

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:10YT||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:USERG||WP:BLP1E)