Alex Heckler: He's worked for some notable politicians, though I can't find reliable, secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search to confirm many of the unsourced claims made here.  All I can find is passing mentions of him in articles about Florida politics.  He may well have worked for some US presidents and senators, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Politics ,  and Florida .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't find much coverage about him, he's mentioned in a few sources given already in the article, but these aren't enough for notability here.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Source 3 seems to be about him, but that's all there is that's sigcov.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Massachusetts ,  and New Jersey .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  No WP:SIGCOV .  Is a lawyer, a party hack, and a fundraiser - none of these are actually notable, though.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] His notability does not derive from being a lawyer, but from his influence and political activism, of which fundraising is a part.  Uppagus ( talk ) 11:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree with the claims made here by Wikishovel and others.  The subject has an entire Wall Street Journal profile about him and is mentioned on the White House website when he was appointed to serve last year on the US Holocaust Memorial Council.  Not to mention he has been deputy national finance chair for the Democratic National Committee and Biden Victory Fund for many years.  Also look at the awards section.  It is clear these items sufficiently demonstrate notability.  Andrewjacobson6 ( talk ) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being named to a planning council for a government project doesn't get you notability.  Rest is routine political work.  Deputy finance guy for a national campaign is office work.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Sigcov is demonstrated by source 3 and 11.  I also see that he was cited as a top fundraiser for President Biden and was part of a team that hosted him in Miami recently.  Andrewjacobson6 ( talk ) 06:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Andrewjacobson6 ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Keep I wrote this on my talk page, but maybe it should be here.  I thought the article was coming along well - also thanks to your help - and I am really surprised that you suddenly decided it should be wiped out altogether.  I started the article because his name comes up often in certain circles and I didn't see any write-up about him on Wikipedia.  I came up with quite a bit of material about him, and the sources looked reliable to me, so it is hard for me to believe you say he is not notable.  If he was profiled in the Wall Street Journal, his appointments have been noted by the White House, and his work has been covered in all the Florida newspapers, it is hard for me to understand the arguments cited above about not being worthy of a Wikipedia article.  Strange.  Also the fact that the person who wants this article deleted worked pretty hard to make it better.  There is always room for improvement and as I have learned since starting to edit here, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress.  When more information and sources become available, they can be added.  But I can't see a reason why this article should be deleted altogether. -- Hazooyi ( talk ) 08:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mostly because there aren't many extensive stories just about him.  Doing those things shows he COULD be notable here, but we need sourcing.  We don't have enough for sourcing to keep the article.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - His fundraising and activism has made him influential both in state and national politics, all this besides his official and presidential appointments, mentioned in the article and reiterated by the editors above.  Uppagus ( talk ) 11:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Keep" - Notable and definitely of interest to readers following American politics today.  Developer19801 ( talk ) 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Pass notability for coverage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigal1746 ( talk • contribs ) Keep Per Developer19801, and Since the us elections are getting closer, the role of Alex Heckler in the Democratic campaign is not insignificant.  HaOfa ( talk ) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete After reviewing the sources, he clearly fails WP:GNG .  Almost all of the coverage is self-promotional, the rest is mere mentions.  Inclusion in a "Top 100" list does not count, unfortunately for the person claiming source 3 is good, and the WSJ profile was from 2007 and while I can only access the top part, seems like an interview/man on the street type of article.  Even if it's not, it would stand alone.  SportingFlyer T · C 10:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Heckler is a Known attorney, political fundraiser and philanthtopist.  He was an intern at the White House under president Bill Clinton and Chair the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA).  Mhagay ( talk ) 10:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that's all in the article.  Being a "known attorney" or fundraiser or philanthropist doesn't make someone notable, though?  Being an intern to Bill Clinton might make you notable if there was WP:SIGCOV of what you got up to while in the White House, but usually doesn't...  Are there any policy-based reasons for keeping this article?  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closing admin: It should be noted that of the seven 'Keep' ! votes, most don't present policy reasons for retention, all have under 1,000 edits, one has less than 200 edits, four have less than 100 edits, one has less than 10 edits.  It's a little odd that all would find their way to a random enough AfD of a little known party activist?  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The point is, he is not a little known party activist.  Being from Ireland does not necessarily indicate an expertise in American politics.  If editors have responded here, it's probably because  his role in American politics is not a secret.  Hazooyi ( talk ) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  I see no reason why to delete this article.  From what I could see, Heckler's activities extend far beyond just being a simple lawyer.   He is the Managing Partner & Founder of LSN Partners LLC, a bipartisan consulting firm, including government affairs, regulatory matters, economic development, and emergency management.  His roles include serving on the Biden-Harris 2020 National Finance Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the United States Conference of Mayors ( https://www.usmayors.org/ ).  He was appointed to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council ( https://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum/council ), where he continues to fight against antisemitism.  In the context of public universities dealing with contentious speakers on campus, Heckler has advocated for viewpoint-neutral policies.  ( User:Shulelevin ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin ( talk • contribs ) @ Shulalevin : I'm curious: what prompted you to post here today, after three months of inactivity?  Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Wikishovel , well, I was I am curious why would you ask that and whether you ask other editors such questions.  Shulalevin ( talk ) 15:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, I would ask the same question of User:Andrewjacobson6 , whose post above was their first edit, five minutes after account creation.  My guess is that there's an online discussion forum or social media thread someplace, where this AFD was mentioned.  There's nothing wrong with your having posted here on that basis, but if someone involved with editing the article was WP:Canvassing for support there, then that would be a problem.  Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We ask because we care about wikipedia's reliability and standards, this isn't a "game" to be won.  We treat every article fairly and in a neutral fashion.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, the point of this page is to cite relevant policy justifying that the article in question be retained, or deleted.  All of what you've written above is contained in the article body.  We already know what it says.  There's no point in just copying it over here, too.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Getting it back on the log, comment TK Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events (i.e. this individual easily passes WP:GNG / WP:NBASIC ).  Such sources include a ~2,250-word profile in The Wall Street Journal from 2008 and coverage in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from 2004 and also from 2008 .  There is also some less substantial coverage of him in The Miami Herald (regarding his non-political work), NBC News ( 2003 , 2013 ; each regarding his role as a fundraiser), The Tampa Bay Times (regarding his appointment to Chair of the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors' Association), The New York Times (with coverage of his 2007 wedding , as well as more passing mention in 2011 regarding fundraising).  Appeals to WP:NPOL are a bit spurious; his notability does not come from holding or running for public office, and he himself is not a politician in a plain sense.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure I agree the coverage is as significant as you make it out to be beyond the WSJ article, though there are a couple articles that are paywalled for me.  It's not enough for me to change my vote, though.  SportingFlyer T · C 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm also not sure of the significance of those references.  Most are from at least 15 years ago, and passing mention of being appointed to an administrative position of a body for which he does not qualify for membership (the DGA ) also does not signify notability.  Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!  17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Closing admin note on relist I had closed this as delete, but per Red-tailed hawk 's note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Heckler re: the edit conflict, I have relisted it for further discussion. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per c. Being a "party hack" doesn't have bearing on notability/notoriety. Aaron Liu ( talk ) 03:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable activist/operative. No significant news coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The sources identified by Red-tailed hawk, particularly features in the Wall Street Journal and South Florida Sun-Sentinel , show that the subject passes the GNG. Coverage is sustained over much of the early 2000s due to the subject's activities as a lobbyist and fundraiser. Jfire ( talk ) 05:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep . The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG given the coverage outlined most granularly by Red-tailed hawk above, including citations that are not yet listed in the article itself, such as coverage by the New York Times of his wedding, suggesting he is a notable figure. These items make clear he is not just a lawyer or fundraiser but a figure recognized by both the political and media establishment. Andrewjacobson6 ( talk ) 08:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Second "keep" by User:Andrewjacobson6 struck. We all get to post a recommendation once at an WP:AFD , and then comment on the recommendations made. A reply would also be helpful from you, and from article creator @ Hazooyi : : was there a discussion about this AFD elsewhere, online or offline, that prompted you to create an account and immediately post here? @ Shulalevin : has also not yet answered a similar question above. Wikishovel ( talk ) 08:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we can assume that the article creator, who was active a day before this was nominated for deletion, and who also was given a notification about the deletion on their talk page, was not inappropriately canvassed to this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I'm asking the article creator if they know anything about offline canvassing for this AFD, from which it appears that User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin responded. Wikishovel ( talk ) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If you mean me, I am sorry that I didn't answer sooner. I am still not familiar with all the terminology you are using. I have been reading up on Wikipedia policies in order to edit properly, but I'm not  sure what you mean about "canvassing."  I started editing Wikipedia a few months ago and until now felt like it was fun and a great learning experience. But now all of a sudden I am being attacked from all sides and my work is being disparaged and treated like garbage. I have worked hard to create an article on a person whose name kept coming up and had none. Why all this "assumption of bad faith" to use some Wikipedia lingo I have seen being used?  I don't even know any other Wikipedia editors. Now it's not so much fun anymore. It feels like a threatening and unfriendly place. I do wish I could say nice to meet you...-- Hazooyi ( talk ) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nobody is saying your work is garbage, and I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm trying to work out why there are some odd responses in this discussion. Did you mention this deletion discussion elsewhere online? That's what I'm asking you. I'm also asking User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin to reply to my questions to them above. Wikishovel ( talk ) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What kind of discussion do you mean? Where would I mention it? I have never had any contact with anyone on Wikipedia except for someone who wrote to me on my page about something they thought should be changed in an article I edited, and I said they were welcome to make that change. The only others who have contacted me are you and Bastun, to leave me messages that I can only understand as a wish for me and my work to disappear from the stage and leave Wikipedia to those are apparently smarter and better at editing than me. Not encouraging to say the least. And the continuing hostility towards anyone who thinks the article has some value is making me rethink if I want to contribute here...And by the way, after hearing all the criticism against this article, I went to look at others that were targeted for deletion. Amazingly, articles of two sentences and one reference at most were considered fine and the motion was to keep them. So really, it seems as if this article is being singled out in a strange way. If you are asking how people got to the page about this individual, I wonder how you got there? Is there some kind of red button that goes off when someone creates an article related to American politics?-- Hazooyi ( talk ) 17:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is what it says at the top of this page: You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others. If you ask me, you have no right to interrogate anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazooyi ( talk • contribs ) I'm not interrogating you. I'm asking you if you mentioned this AFD elsewhere online: on social media, maybe? Because that would explain User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin showing up and posting as they did. If you did that, because you didn't know it was against Wikipedia's rules, then that's OK. I just want to know. Wikishovel ( talk ) 18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the rogue "keep" comments coming out of the woodwork appear to be the most notable thing this guy has done recently. It reads very much like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Not everyone that knows or works with a sitting president meets notability guidelines. WP:RESUME Lindsey40186 ( talk ) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The other delete votes provide the same explanation that I would for deleting, so see above. Slightly offtopic: The "Keep" votes, on the other hand, are laughably transparent new-account sockpuppets from a UPE farm, and if this guy Heckler didn't pay someone online to create this article and make an effort to see it not deleted, I'll eat my hat. Fred Zepelin ( talk ) 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please strike your over-generalization about keep !voters. I'll AGF that you overlooked the fact that

Discussion outcome: delete