Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Garcia (government official)

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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Garcia (government official)

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

No Reliable sources have found this gentleman to be Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article could go. While I saw some sources listed, the article was not composed in proper Wikipedia format. Nor is this official notable enough to merit such an entry.TH1980 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - he held the office of Assistant Secretary which is a sub-cabinet position, therefore covered by POLOUTCOMES (per previous discussion, the ranks of Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary in the U.S. system are considered Sub-Cabinet; Deputy Assistant Secretary is not). The article needs addition of sources, however, a cursory search of Google indicates these are readily available; just a couple of numerous ones here: [1], [2], [3], etc., etc. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've updated the article with sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sourcing exists. Lepricavark (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to see this article give us more substantive information on Garcia's education and other background information, but his level of office in the US federal government and the notice he got clearly are enough to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for refimprove. Further improvement is certainly still needed here, but the claim of notability is reasonably strong and the sourcing has been improved enough to cover off the basic WP:GNG question. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP article is more than adequate. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person.Passes WP:GNG and WP:POLOUTCOMES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 20 February 2017 (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.