| Revision as of 20:08, 11 February 2011 edit24.185.84.37 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:08, 11 February 2011 edit undo24.185.84.37 (talk) →Charles Mitchell (government official)Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)</small> | ||
| I think it's notable enough to keep up there. There are plenty articles here on wikipedia that we leave open for a month or two until some sources can be brought around for it. Deleting it for reasons of notability is out of the question. Under Secretary of a cabinet department is notable enough for sure. ] (]) 14:31, 11 |
I think it's notable enough to keep up there. There are plenty articles here on wikipedia that we leave open for a month or two until some sources can be brought around for it. Deleting it for reasons of notability is out of the question. Under Secretary of a cabinet department is notable enough for sure. ] (]) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:08, 11 February 2011
Charles Mitchell (government official)
- Charles Mitchell (government official) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of susbstance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Unreferenced, cannot substantiate notability even if it is implied (which, presently, it is not). - Vianello (Talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I fail to see how an article on a former under secretary of homeland security is not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.104 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Why does this need to be deleted, and why were the sources I put taken down? As the above comment states, I believe an under secretary is important enough to have an article. Defense under secretaries have their own pages and there are some for under secretaries of other departments.WaffleStomp (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment – The references were removed because they did not mention the subject of the article. I cannot speak to other articles, but I assume they are supported by reliable sources that support notability of the individual. ttonyb (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's notable enough. Under secretary is definitely notable. Its not a question of notability but of if we have sources, if not, then delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.139.18 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it's notable enough to keep up there. There are plenty articles here on wikipedia that we leave open for a month or two until some sources can be brought around for it. Deleting it for reasons of notability is out of the question. Under Secretary of a cabinet department is notable enough for sure. JeffJonez (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Categories: