Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Tapella

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. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Tapella[edit]

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

Balatant advert about the current CEO of the GPO, created and edited by accounts with COI: Gpopr1 (talk · contribs) 162.140.67.10 (talk · contribs) Printer25 (talk · contribs) JustbeCalm (talk · contribs) Usgpo (talk · contribs) Hello1237 (talk · contribs), no independent sources cited. Sole Soul (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a cut-and-paste from elsewhere, written in totally non-encyclopedic style. The guy himself seems like he ought to be notable due to his position, but a Google search finds no mention of him in the press. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the style is a problem. Sometimes you need to search under variations of someone's name. I did a search for him using the name Bob Tapella and found references from independent sources such as this one: Change Ahead for GPO? from Graphic Arts Monthly. Using the name Robert Tapella, I found these articles at the Washington Post: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Robert+Tapella%60site%3Awashingtonpost.com I think this coverage adds up to notability. - Eastmain (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote to Keep based on the articles supplied by Eastman. The Washington Post reports him testifying numerous times before Congress, appearing at press conferences with Nancy Pelosi, etc. I don't know why I didn't find this stuff when I searched but he is clearly notable. Now somebody needs to rewrite the article so it contains references and sounds encyclopedic.... --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Does he meet the minimal threshold of notability? The answer is yes, all the CEOs of the GPO (25 of them throughout history) appeared before Congress for confirmaton, this will generate some news. But I doubt that we can find anything about him that is not already covered or can be covered in the GPO article. The GPO article already lists all the CEOs. I think we should redirect this page to it. Sole Soul (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GPO article lists them. The individual articles are the place to cover their individual careers--what we need is write the earlier articles. And to trim the current one substantial: excessive photographs, PR language. That they're PD doesn't make all the content suitable for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (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.