Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Mitchell (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 speedy delete. Author has acknowledged "case of mistaken identity". Favonian (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mitchell (government official)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, cannot substantiate notability even if it is implied (which, presently, it is not). - Vianello (Talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 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)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.84.37 (talk) 20:08, February 11, 2011[reply]

Comment – Just saying something is notable does not make it so. Please indicate how this article meets Wikipedia criteria for notability. Just having a position in the American government is not one of the criteria for inclusion. As far as other articles, each article must stand on its own merits. It could be the other articles were left open; however, this one has been nominated for deletion because it is a non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance that fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, according to the administrator on your talk page, it meets the quality for notability. "Hello Ttonyb1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charles Mitchell (government official), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)"

With that said, since the sources I posted were invalid, I suppose it will have to be deleted.WaffleStomp (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I suggest you read the quote in detail. No one stated that the individual is notable, only that the "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7." The key word here is assertion, it does not say "has provided support" or "is notable". In order to fail a CSD nomination an article has only to make an "assertion of importance or significance". The standard for an AfD is much higher. (i.e., it needs reliable sources). Just saying something is notable does not make it so. ttonyb (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I have said, the article is notable without a doubt. Numerous other sub-cabinet level officials have articles, even ones in the department of agriculture. However, as the sources I put in the article were deleted because they apparently are not valid (they were straight from dhs.gov), I believe we should leave the article for a while if someone comes around with different sources. I have reformatted the article a bit for now and I took out some of the more non-provable information, like his friendship with Obama's staff, and his reasons for resigning. WaffleStomp (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Let me be as specific as possible, "real-world" notability has no bearing on Wikipedia based notability. In order for an article to survive, it has to establish Wikipedia based notability as defined in WP:N or WP:BIO using reliable, secondary sources. Articles that do not are typically deleted. Once again, being a government official is not one of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. The other sub-cabinet officials you mentioned have no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. In addition, please see WP:WAX for arguments to avoid in an AfD. As indicated above the reason the references you provided in the article were removed were simply that they did not support any of the text about the individual. You should have 7 days from the start of the AfD for provide reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has very serious verifiability issues. According to this, and the Department of Homeland Security website, there has NEVER BEEN a person named Charles Mitchell in the position of Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis. The first was in the position was Charles E. Allen until Jan. 2009. Then Bart Johnson was in an acting role until Caryn Wagner was appointed and confirmed to the post in late 2009. As for the other post claimed held I can not find proof of anyone of that name ever holding it. I strongly suspect this is a case of a) mistaken identity or b) a hoax. And c) it is a current BLP violation. Either way, it needs to be deleted. Ravendrop 04:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suppose it was a case of mistaken identity. I am all ok for deleting it. Go ahead. WaffleStomp (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2011 (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.