Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Illinois

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Illinois. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Illinois|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Illinois. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Illinois/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Illinois

Wilmette Junior High School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed redirect (with a personal attack). Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "with a personal attack"? I see here that you replaced the entire article with a redirect and were called out for vandalism by another user. Caeryllium (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something vandalism, when it isn't, is a personal attack. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wilmette Public Schools District 39. I found these [1] [2] [3], but I find it unlikely that they add up to establish notability per WP:NSCHOOL or are enough for a fulfilling encyclopedic article. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why judge whether or not the article is fulfilling enough for an encyclopedic article? Your decision seems awfully speculative, and I think it's worth noting that this wikipedia page is being worked on by a few friends as a project. Why can't we construct it first and see if it's enough to be an encyclopedic article? What's the harm in waiting? Caeryllium (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All content in an article should be based on a collection of reliable sources that prove that the subject is notable, meaning that those sources must prove why it's significantly different from other schools which makes it worthy of an article. So far, two of the article's sources provide run-of-the-mill facts or statistics, and the other is a primary source. From the sources that I've found from scowering the internet, I've deduced that there is simply not enough information from sources to make a good article. We can perhaps include that information in the school district's article, which is why I !voted merge and not delete, but it probably won't stand on its own. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Brooks (author)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR: no book reviews that I can find. The assertion that he "has written dozens of scientific papers on eye diseases and eye surgery" is unsourced and word-for-word straight out of his own claim on this commercial website. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Medicine, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a shame, he looks a lot like my uncle (who is a nice guy). But, just like my uncle, he is non-notable. I found absolutely no independent coverage to establish GNG or even a case for NAUTHOR/NSCHOLAR. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wood

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and in extension, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator I would argue that it does not fail NPOL; WP:OTHERSTUFF. List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) have red links and blue links, both showing that these types of figures are notable, seeing as they manage all political activity of their party in their state. Wood has Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT coverage as can be seen by local news articles and governors press releases about him in references. Masohpotato (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Press releases by a governor about their appointee would not be considered independent of the subject. I think the presence of red links do not indicate notability. They indicate an editor put in red links. I've seen mayors of cities of 3,000 people with red links.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for meeting WP:NPOL as a state cabinet secretary. It is my understanding state cabinet secretaries have been interpreted as state/province–wide office for NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, this is not the kind of office that WP:NPOL presumes to be a notable one. Mpen320 comment below entails what I was going to reply here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials, but rather elected officials like those who sit on the North Carolina Council of State. While there are politicians who serve in those positions, I don't consider most of the people in this chapter of the Illinois Blue Book to be politicians and would consider it applies to the rest of the US including Arkansas. An example of a statewide official in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer. It certainly does not apply to state party chairs who are often elected by a handful of people and are not guaranteed to generate enough independent, secondary coverage to warrant a presumption of notability. This would not preclude a creation based on meeting the criteria set out by other policies on Wikipedia. A county judge in a larger county and cabinet member (albeit one with a very short time in office) might be able to meet that threshold.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would note solicitor generals in the United States like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer are almost always under an attorney general and not cabinet members so not a great example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) is exactly on point, and resulted in a keep. Statewide cabinet members (and state supreme court justices) both meet WP:NPOL without elections, in my opinion and per precedent. Schimmer and Johnson are both listed on WP:NSUBPOL, and they illustrate the line. Wood is just barely past the notable line, in my opinion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just offering a general comment. I am agnostic on this particular article (hence the lack of a vote), but a personal believer that WP:NPOL is not intended to include most statewide, unelected department heads.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transportation secretary is a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, so by the letter of the law it would theoretically pass NPOL. However, there has been pushback prior regarding minor state cabinet positions that are more bureaucratic rather than political/ministerial (I do not know if this is one of those, just laying it out). Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Transportation Secretary of Arkansas, not merely as a party chair. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Mild nitpick. He was the Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. The Secretary of Transportation is a different office under the Highway Commission. I imagine this does not affect your vote (as I own, it's a nitpick). I edited the article to correct it. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials. The goal of any stand-alone page is to provide enough verifiable information from independent sources for readers to understand what the subject is and why they are important. With elected officials, there are frequently numerous articles about who they are, what they stand for, usually during the campaign, and then they are likely to be responsible for the implementation of public policy (and covered in reliable sources for those actions). Appointed (especially state) officials receive much less coverage (I think I once compared the coverage of appointed versus elected auditors). So, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:GNG, not whether the subject is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that WP:NPOL applies to state cabinet or agency heads that are not elected as they generally do not garner the same level of coverage. At the state level, being part of a governor's "cabinet" can range from being long-time civil service administrators of agencies to friends or donors of either the sitting governor/the governor's state party or to people that simply are part of the governor's staff that have heightened titles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based discussion would be helpful for clearer consensus determination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Brestin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits unilateral return top Draft. WP:ROTM author. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Christianity, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet WP:RS standards and at least half are just profiles on non-independent sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple independent sources covering Brestin's work, namely, a 2010 review of her book in the journal Death Studies; a 2019 Publishers Weekly book review; and a bit of analysis of her 2002 book by Kathaleen Amende in Desire and the Divine: Feminine Identity in White Southern Women's Writing (Louisiana State University Press). There's also an interview with Today's Christian Woman magazine she did alongside a co-author, though I'm not sure how much that factors into WP:NAUTHOR. These sources have been added to the article. Best, Bridget (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources provided above and below by Nnev66 for WP:NAUTHOR. Bridget (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found newspaper articles about the subject, two of which were about her book "The Friendships of Women" and I've added them to the article. With the sources Bridget found, meets WP:NAUTHOR #3 and possibly WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I just want to say that this is incredibly poorly written. I fixed a few of the worst mistakes. It's almost impossible to get past the typos for me to judge the notability of the subject. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Amberg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO. City Clerk of Chicago is not an office which confers inherent notability (nor is penitentiary commissioner, another office he appears to have held). Search turns up some mentions of his name but no significant coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place: Amberg was an elected official whose office (City Clerk of Chicago) has a Wikipedia page with numerous officeholders' biographies included on Wikipedia. City Clerk of Chicago was and remains notable, hence many holders of this office have Wikipedia biographies and the office has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyVoice (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that major local can often meet GNG, the sourcing on this and his tenure do not lead me to believe that such content exists.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on this based on the comments regarding him passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO, I truly dont see WP:THREE independent reliable sources that have in-depth coverage about him (in fact I dont even see one, there is a piece from his alma mater, there are opinion pieces that he has writen himself but nothing about him from an independent source). --hroest 15:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Gerrysay (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "lasting impact on his discipline" standard feels like an arbitrary threshold (e.g. to quantify "lasting" is inherently subjective). This guy seems impactful enough to clear the bar. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think he's quite reached the level of PROF, and don't see multiple independent GNG qualifying sources Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hoover_Institution#Members I do not think he has enough notability or source coverage for a stand alone article like this. He seems mostly known to be a Hoover Institute fellow. Considering that the previous AFD result was pretty much SNOW delete, this may be a decent alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review of the references and presence based on Google search and author's profile, suggests that, in my opinion, there's sufficient independent coverage and notability through media coverages, interviews, and invited opinions as "analyst and economist." It's true that he might be up-and-coming, but that doesn't inhibit inclusion on WP at the moment with current information. WeWake (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To meet WP:GNG, I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article and I couldn't find anything online. The Wharton article is not independent: the subject was a student there. Forbes 30 under 30 (2017) is two sentences. Mercatus, MacDonald-Laurier, Hoover are not independent. Where are the independent, reliable sources with significant coverage?

For WP:PROF#C1 (academic influence through paper reviews and citations), the subject has one highly cited paper "The local residential land use regulatory environment across U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton index" but no others. More is needed. Some here have argued for WP:PROF#C7 (popular influence), but one interview in L'Express and a little-known podcast doesn't meet the standard to me. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that this has generated so much discussion when it seems like a fairly clear-cut case to me. If we have determined that WP:PROF is not met, that makes things easier as WP:BIO is less subjective. I still don't see anything which demonstrates that BIO is met - Forbes is independent, but not substantial; Wharton is substantial, but not independent (they are writing about their student and these kinds of articles are inherently promotional and several keep !voters do not seem to acknowledge this). Those are the only non-primary sources where he is the subject, articles he has written are of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NPROF is a red herring here. According to NPROF, this guideline "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines."

I agree this seems like a "fairly clear-cut case". But I think the sources provide clear-cut case for keep given the sourcing which meets WP:GNG.

In particular:

1. WP:SIGCOV

2. Sources are sometimes not independent, but most are.

3. The "Presumed" aspect of GNG does not guarantee inclusion, but it looks to me like a standalone page here has more support than not.

4. I added several new RSes that I found, including some Spanish sources that discuss ex-Governor Jeb Bush and Hartley in the same sentence since they founded the Economic Club of Miami together. This economist is pretty obviously notable in my opinion. [4][5][6][7][8][9]

Lastly, @North8000 also has the right approach in saying, "Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation..." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is extremely on the line imo, but the subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. The only independent coverage that's even slightly in-depth is the Miami Herald article (pretty good imo) and the Forbes editor profile, which I quote here in full: Hartley cofounded Real Time Macroeconomics, an economic research organization creating new macroeconomic health indicators using internet based data such as job openings, layoff announcements, and self-reported wages. Hartley is a policy expert and contributor for Forbes and the Huffington Post. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, as a smattering of expert quotes, non-independent profiles, and media interviews is the typical coverage for a person who is not yet but will become notable. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note: I wasn't able to access in full the L'Express and El Nuevo Herald articles. The first seemed like an interview and the latter seemed like passing mentions, but if they contain significant coverage it might be useful to quote here in full the paragraphs that discuss Hartley directly and in depth. Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wanted the full text quoted out, here it is for your convenience. As you indicated, the Miami Herald article goes into Hartley's founding of the Economic Club of Miami deeply and the purpose of the club and its conference. Specifically, in the article subsection entitled, "How the Economic Club of Miami Started," it goes extensively into Hartley's involvement:

"The Economic Club of Miami was started in 2021. Hartley had started coming down from New York to visit his parents in South Florida and felt like while finance professionals were moving to Miami, they did not have the same type of events or programs they had up North. Hartley reached out to Jeb Bush Jr. who he got to know working as economic advisor to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign in 2016, and in January 2021, they put together a Google document to brainstorm about creating the group. Lourdes Castillo, a veteran public relations professional and executive, and Jeremy Schwarz, joined, too. All four are co-founders and Hartley serves as chairman."

Hartley is interviewed extensively throughout the article such as here:

"'Our goal is to build the signature emerging markets finance conference that brings financiers from around the world to talk about the trajectories of Latin American economies,' Hartley said in an interview with the Miami Herald. 'And both ways: outsiders investing in Latin America and Latin Americans investing elsewhere.' Recent growth and opportunities in South Florida will be a topic of discussion but without skipping over the emerging challenges, said Hartley, also an economics PhD candidate at Stanford University."

And here "'It won’t be just about investing,' Hartley said. 'We will discuss housing issues in many different respects including the supply of affordable housing.' Not attending but likely to be talked: new Argentine president Javier Milei. 'Milei is sort of a catalyst agent for economic liberalization in Argentina,' said Hartley, 34, the chairman of the Economic Club of Miami, and so, 'with that, you’ve seen a resurgence of interest in investing in Latin America.'"

Hartley is also the lead photo of the article and the subtext of the photo reads, "Jon Hartley giving the introduction at an Economic Club of Miami event on November 7, 2022 featuring Kenneth Griffin of Citadel and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez. Held at Miami Dade College."

In respect to the other articles, this Nuevo Herald article says the following (translated to English for convenience), "Its other founders, businessman Jeb Bush Jr. and economist Jon Hartley, are also scheduled to speak at the private gathering of about 130 people." This prominently puts Jeb Bush and Jon Hartley in the same sentence, Bush is obviously a notable individual and it is listing Hartley and Bush as co-founders of this organization it is writing a piece on.

In this Nuevo Herald article, it reads: "Now it's Miami's turn, now ready to play in the major league. The city has earned a place at the 'same table' with executives from major companies, says Castillo, who serves on the board with Jeb Bush Jr., attorney Jeremy Schwartz, senior advisor to Mayor Suárez, and economist Jon Hartley, the club's president." Once again, the article, that is writing extensively about Hartley's organization, puts Bush and Hartley in the same sentence, demonstrating his notability and bolstering his case to be notable enough for inclusion in this article.

This Nuevo Herald article is a repost of the Miami Herald article (since this is the sister paper), which contributes to the fact that this meets WP:SIGCOV given that this information listed above about Hartley was widely distributed in various languages (which also includes the L'Express article, which is obviously in French).

Given that you mentioned the L'Express article, I will cover the most key points here. This is essentially an interview with this publication that covers Hartley's thoughts on the Trump Administration. Here are some key excerpts (translated to English for convenience, "In this profusion of analyses, Jon Hartley, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a think tank close to the Republican Party, and a doctoral candidate in economics at Stanford University, provides insight. To understand the protectionist shift in the United States, the researcher discusses the emergence, within both the left and the right, of a 'neo-populist' movement that challenges several foundations of the old neo-liberal consensus in Washington, including adherence to the principles of free trade." Now onto the interview, "L'Express: Do you share the fears of Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regarding the consequences of the trade war between China and the United States on global growth? Jon Hartley: Regarding the potential long-term negative effects of the trade war on the global economy, I am more optimistic than most commentators. Chinese manufacturers depend in part on their ability to export to the United States, and American consumers are very happy to find cheap products from China. These factors are likely to eventually force the two countries to come to the negotiating table. It is also possible that some Chinese trade will be diverted to the United States via other countries, as has already been the case in Vietnam since the late 2010s." This demonstrates that Hartley has a notable opinion per WP:SIGCOV given that he is being interviewed in depth as a notable policy expert worthy of interviewing. The article also asks Hartley about Trump's trade policy, once again demonstrating above average notability, "'Does Donald Trump really have a trade strategy, or is he moving blindly? Donald Trump considered the asymmetry in trade barriers to be fundamentally unfair. And it's true that historically, most countries have imposed higher tariffs on the United States than the rates the United States imposed on them. Donald Trump's tariff increase in early April has opened negotiations with several countries. It's not impossible that, at the end of these negotiations, tariffs will eventually be lowered reciprocally, and in that case, this would be favorable to free trade. This is the most desirable scenario.'" I also plan on adding a couple more articles that bolster notability by showing that Hartley was Jeb Bush's 2016 economic policy adviser. I also found a Bloomberg article that discussed the Economic Club of Miami and quoted Hartley and mentioned Bush and him in the same sentence again. "Their arrival spurred last year the creation of the Economic Club of Miami, which hosted Monday’s event. 'We are trying to capture the zeitgeist of this Miami moment,' said Jon Hartley, chair of the club, which counts Jeb Bush’s son as one of its founders." I think this should do more than enough to bolster notability, not to mention all of other articles that were there before that I didn't even discuss here. Is this the information you were looking for or do you need anything else? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Gjb0zWxOb, this is helpful, thanks for quoting from the sources. These excerpts suggest to me that none of the other sources you quote from (excepting the Miami Herald piece) constitutes WP:SIGCOV, which continues to leave me ambivalent about keeping this article. (On that note, you might consider reviewing the language used in WP:SIGCOV: most of those articles are trivial mentions of Jon Hartley, and the interview is not a secondary source – see WP:INTERVIEWS. Notability in Wikipedia terms means receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not by being quoted alongside notable people or giving media quotes.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO few articles meet a stringent interpretation of GNG. IMO this one meets a typical community application of GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think most BLPs meet WP:GNG (edit: or some other SNG, like academics or authors) fairly strictly, hence my ambivalence, but I agree this is not far from GNG interpretations of frequently-cited media experts. A hard call here, I don't envy the closing admin. Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Miami Herald article meets WP:GNG as it has extensive quotes from Hartley and showcases him speaking as the main picture of the article. His face is literally part of the article. Additionally, the event was not for a convention he was simply an attendee or speaker, but for the Economic Club of Miami, of which he was a founder. This event included other notable people from multiple industries and domains, such as Ken Griffin of Citadel financial, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, Anthony Scaramucci, and Jorge Quiroga, the former president of Bolivia. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)