Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cawthome

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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cawthome[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Only 744 hits on google for the name, and none that I can see which meets WP:RS. Perhaps better as a paragraph in the ISI article? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the notability is not judged by Google hits, and the references are reliable. Is not a reference of Google Books reliable? Even if these references are not reliable, an article cannot be deleted on this context. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 08:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles about the Directors of other agencies too like Alok Joshi of Research and Analysis Wing and John O. Brennan of CIA, how they do not violate WP:GNG? They ought to be nominated for deletion too. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he was director-general of the Inter-Services Intelligence, that makes him de facto notable. We have articles on CIA, MI5, Mossad etc. chiefs and the ISI is the major intelligence agency of Pakistan. There will obviously be less sources on him compared to other ISI chiefs as he was among the earliest heads of the organisation and the internet didn't exist back in the 1950s. That shouldn't be a reason to delete the article. Mar4d (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is judged by coverage in reliable secondary sources, GBooks has only one book which mentions this person[1] and that is already a source in the article, being the head of an intel organization does not make you defacto notable, notability is not inheirited. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, being the head of a major intelligence organization DOES make you notable. He's mentioned in these places, albeit not in any detail: [2][3][4]. He's particularly notable if he's the one that actually started the organization, as he appears to be. Offline sources will almost certainly have far more on him. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeno thanks for these references, they have been added in the article! Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 05:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – References are solid and subject is notable. The subject played an apparently major role in the creation of a national intelligence agency, of which he also served as Director-General. Certainly passes the notability guideline. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The article creator has apparently been canvassing for votes.[5][6][7] two of which have now voted in this AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CANVASS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The editor did not suggest a vote one way or the other and I did not have any prior bias or involvement with the article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkness Shines: This article is on my watchlist and I have also edited this article before, as the revision history shows. Moreover, when this article was created, I was invited at my talk page by the article creator to help improve the article. So I've been here before you. Your discarding of my !vote as a canvassed one is not entirely valid. Mar4d (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkness Shines: Yes Tyrol is right, as per WP:CANVASS, I invited the editors to give their "valuable comments" only, I did not say to vote for me, or against deletion. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 05:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the lack of Google hits are grounds for deletion, especially when the sources given in the article are reliable ones. That, and the intelligence services of a nuclear power were apparently the brainchild of the subject. Passes the general notability guideline without a doubt, at least from this editor's perspective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I found this through the AfD log and nobody told me about it or asked me to comment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't understand how Google hits can be a criterion for judging an article's existence. As long as the subject-matter is important and there are reliable sources, any article has its own value. Also, notifying other editors is fully acceptable on Wikipedia.--AsceticRosé 04:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A general officer, which makes him notable under WP:SOLDIER and WP:COMMONSENSE. Also founder and head of an intelligence organisation. Clear keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The leader of a national intelligence agency becomes notable by dint of being the leader of a national intelligence agency. Also clears WP:SOLDIER as a two-star general. See also WP:GHITS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER. General officers are considered notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generals are presumed notable per WP:SOLDIER. And the head of a major intelligence organisation should also be notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the head of the ISI, equal to any CIA head, and as a general officer. This ridiculous nomination is only indicative of our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2013 (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.