Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Riechers

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.

The result was delete. WP:REFUND may be used to request history undeletion for merging to a suitable target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Riechers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Absolutely no idea why this article exists. A guy who worked for a defence contractor killed himself. That’s it. Mccapra (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! He worked for the secretary of the Air Force, and apparently committed suicide? While on a weird short-term contract? It is automatically important and permanently notable when people around our leaders die unexpectedly, even if it is by their own hand. We should not just KEEP this article, but DELETE the NOMINATION FOR DELETION! ♠Ace Frahm♠^talk 10:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When giving the title takes half the article the person is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. His suicide was reported, but other than that there is no indication of notability. There might be a greater story in it, but it is unclear what, and a simple news report of an apparent suicide is no indication of significance. Notability doesn't come from vague insinuation of something improper. Unless more come out of the story, then the person would not be considered notable (even if more comes out, it may still likely be WP:BLP1E). Hzh (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Committing suicide does not confer notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This subject and his suicide was described in an article on 'The corruption that cost America a war', by New York Times journalist Frank Rich, as "a window into the culture of the whole debacle". (I found the article republished in The Palm Beach Post [1] and The Berkshire Eagle on Newspapers.com - no doubt it was first published by the NYT.) A book, Government Contracting: Promises and Perils (Routledge 2016) includes a substantial paragraph about him in the chapter 'Government Contracting: Promises and Perils' [2]. Time magazine also covered his suicide, though the snippet view does not show how much coverage there is [3]. I don't think that he should be deleted completely - either merge, if a suitable target for merging the information about him can be found, or keep (and possibly rename to Suicide of Charles Riechers??). The article certainly needs improving ("the Air Force" - which air force???) - I will add the references I found and some clarifying links etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I started at a clear delete and ended up more ambivalent. There is a level of sigcov, but if it were to be kept, it shouldn't be under Charles Riechers as coverage of him is only in context of the incident and subsequent suicide.[4][5][6][7]. Here's the thing: ONEEVENT applies and if the same situation had occurred but he had resigned and retired then there really wouldn't be enough to overcome BLP. Nor does it look like there were major ongoing ramifications by which this can be put in context. The article is an orphan, and the "scandal" is both minor and questionable. I suppose a redirect and 1-2 sentences at Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance could be done using the Wired column. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the references and more information from them, and added a lead and sections. Re the above editor's suggestion for redirection - he wasn't a government contractor, he was appointed to the second highest procurement position in the Air Force, so I don't think that would be appropriate at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was given a SETA contract, which led to (the appearance of?) impropriety.[8] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:26, 23 March 2019 (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.