Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert F. Brese

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. Moved back to Draft:Robert F. Brese Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Brese[edit]

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

Promotional type article, I don't believe that the post that he held at DOE was notable enough to make him notable - he was just a civil servant doing a job. Some news coverage but not sure if this is in depth enough to meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his most recent job at DOE appears to be notable, but the others were stepping stones. This article needs a lot of work if it's to be kept: it's borderline too messy to fix but I'll take a crack at trimming the cruft out. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up what I could. I'm not sure the infobox belongs on the bottom. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe return to draftspace as my News, Books and browser searches found links including ones saying he was "the department's top cybersecurity official" but there's simply no move target and no better improvement. Notifying AfC users Inomyabcs (who accepted the article) and Onel5969 (always enjoyable working with you ). SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These are some of the most difficult articles to evaluate. Simply because of the position and the 24 hour news cycle's need for filler, folks like this get mentioned. But all the material in the article, as well as what I can find in the search engines is simply routine. In my opinion, it doesn't rise to the level of "comprehensive coverage" necessary to meet WP:GNG. (and right back at you, SwisterTwister ). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: Lots of mentions (as said above, news organizations tend to be indiscriminate; they are for-profit and more information = more ad revenue), but no significant coverage. The subject's role could cause news and other sources to seriously cover the subject, so userfication (trusted editor) seems like the better option. Esquivalience ^t 00:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to userfication to draft space. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 13 October 2015 (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.