Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sorian

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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sorian[edit]

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

Notability. Was part of a group of articles created based on Obama recess appointment announcement. Created by a banned user, but not eligible for WP:CSD#G5. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This may be an FSN article where 1E applies, since the nomination is mostly notable because the subject is gay, and the position itself (current and former) is far from automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Public policy intellectual who has moved into policymaking roles. Subject was quoted as an academic expert [1] and [2], worked as a spokesman for the White House in the 1990s on AIDS policy [3], and as a journalist in the 1980s [4]. Gscholar citation counts read 128,40,20,19,18,etc. Ray^Talk 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- definitely meets WP:N. The nom does not state grounds for CSD, and this appears to be a retaliatory nomination in furtherance of a dispute between the nom and an editor he blocked during an edit war in which he was involved. Minor4th 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has not contributed to any AFDs since 23 June, and has now opposed every one of my recent AFDs. There is no dispute between me and either the account which created the article or the banned user the account was a sock of. There is, however, a difference of opinion between me and Minor4th on matters of climate change. Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, claiming WP:N is met doesn't make it so. Grounds weren't stated, but are obviously WP:N/BLP1E, as the first respondent correctly divined. Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the by, most of the information in the article which isn't "he was a recess appointment, and he's gay" was added by ... me. Rd232 ^talk 17:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing is very thin — the Washington Blade piece is the only one that gives him any nontrivial coverage, and that's not exactly at the level of a major national newspaper. I don't think an interim assistant secretary is the sort of position that's inherently notable. And in this day and age it doesn't seem likely that being both gay and federal policymaker is an especially unusual combination either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch ·comms 02:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale Article is a BLP. —fetch ·comms 02:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references support the Wikipedia standard of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - routine political appointee with a lack of independent reliable sources that are unrelated to the circumstance of his recess appointment. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Are You The Cow Of Pain? , assistant secretary for public affairs is not particularly a notable appointment. Coverage of the person is not significant, and the person is not a particularly noteworthy academic either.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with David Eppstein's argument. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (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.