Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre Hamilton

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Hamilton

[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)

Being a member of the National Mediation Board is not enough for WP:BIO. I see little more than notices about her appointment. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More NMB members with weak qualifications to come if this pans out: Kyle Fortson, Linda Puchala, Ernest W. DuBester. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this low level of an administrative position does not give default notability, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question and a comment. First, the question. A position on the National Mediation Board has to be approved by the US Senate. Is there a discussion buried in the depths of Wikipedia as to how that may fit into notability? I read through the notability (politics) guideline[1], but it did not directly address my question. My second item is a comment. The other people mentioned for future deletion discussions have served on this board for extended periods of time, and are more likely to meet WP:GNG than Hamilton, the newest member of this board. They should be evaluated on their own for notability (though pending the answer to my question about senate-approved positions), and not based on the outcome of this discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all ambassadors have to be approved by the senate, and we do not consider them default notable. On a worldwide scale, I imagine there are some countries that have insanly long lists of people who have to go through some process similar to senatorial approval, so I do not think it would make sense to say all administrative posts approvaed by the senate are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't nominated the others yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (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.