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.
Promotional type article, I don't believe that the post that he held at DOE was notable enough to make him notable - he was just a civil servant doing a job. Some news coverage but not sure if this is in depth enough to meet GNG
Gbawden (
talk) 12:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - his most recent job at DOE appears to be notable, but the others were stepping stones. This article needs a lot of work if it's to be kept: it's borderline
too messy to fix but I'll take a crack at trimming the cruft out.
Bearian (
talk) 01:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I cleaned up what I could. I'm not sure the infobox belongs on the bottom.
Bearian (
talk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe return to draftspace as my News, Books and browser searches found links including ones saying he was "the department's top cybersecurity official" but there's simply no move target and no better improvement. Notifying AfC users
Inomyabcs (who accepted the article) and
Onel5969 (always enjoyable working with you
).
SwisterTwistertalk 06:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - These are some of the most difficult articles to evaluate. Simply because of the position and the 24 hour news cycle's need for filler, folks like this get mentioned. But all the material in the article, as well as what I can find in the search engines is simply routine. In my opinion, it doesn't rise to the level of "comprehensive coverage" necessary to meet
WP:GNG. (and right back at you, SwisterTwister
).
Onel5969TT me 12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Userfy: Lots of mentions (as said above, news organizations tend to be indiscriminate; they are for-profit and more information = more ad revenue), but no
significant coverage. The subject's role could cause news and other sources to seriously cover the subject, so userfication (trusted editor) seems like the better option. Esquivaliencet 00:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I would not object to userfication to draft space.
Bearian (
talk) 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Promotional type article, I don't believe that the post that he held at DOE was notable enough to make him notable - he was just a civil servant doing a job. Some news coverage but not sure if this is in depth enough to meet GNG
Gbawden (
talk) 12:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - his most recent job at DOE appears to be notable, but the others were stepping stones. This article needs a lot of work if it's to be kept: it's borderline
too messy to fix but I'll take a crack at trimming the cruft out.
Bearian (
talk) 01:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I cleaned up what I could. I'm not sure the infobox belongs on the bottom.
Bearian (
talk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe return to draftspace as my News, Books and browser searches found links including ones saying he was "the department's top cybersecurity official" but there's simply no move target and no better improvement. Notifying AfC users
Inomyabcs (who accepted the article) and
Onel5969 (always enjoyable working with you
).
SwisterTwistertalk 06:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - These are some of the most difficult articles to evaluate. Simply because of the position and the 24 hour news cycle's need for filler, folks like this get mentioned. But all the material in the article, as well as what I can find in the search engines is simply routine. In my opinion, it doesn't rise to the level of "comprehensive coverage" necessary to meet
WP:GNG. (and right back at you, SwisterTwister
).
Onel5969TT me 12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Courcelles (
talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Userfy: Lots of mentions (as said above, news organizations tend to be indiscriminate; they are for-profit and more information = more ad revenue), but no
significant coverage. The subject's role could cause news and other sources to seriously cover the subject, so userfication (trusted editor) seems like the better option. Esquivaliencet 00:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I would not object to userfication to draft space.
Bearian (
talk) 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
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.