Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Roehrkasse


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian Roehrkasse

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The same reason as given in the Proposed Deletion rationale stands. This person's life and works, outside of being involved in one event, and even then solely as a named spokesman, have simply never been documented by the world. I can find no sources from which a verifiable biography can be written. Read the one cited source, which was also cited in the previously deleted article, and you'll see no biographical coverage of this person's life and works there, either. Indeed, you'll see explicitly stated that the source's author, one Bud Cummins, has "never met the man" and knows nothing about him beyond that he was a spokesman. At best, if we follow the one single source, we'll end up with a coatrack, because that's largely what that source itself is, in our terms, being more about the things that were said by a spokesman, on behalf of the instutution that he was a spokesman for, than about the actual spokesman himself. There is no scope for a properly verifiable, neutral, biography here. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete (but willing to re-evaluate if more sources come up.) There's a fair amount of buzz about this person in a gnews search, but after weeding out the many passing mentions, most of it seems to stem from Bud Cummins having called out Brian Roehrkasse, and other media outlets reprinting or responding to the spat. Does the spat alone give notability? I'm leaning towards no. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The spat is the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, in which this person's involvement seems to solely be, from what I can find, that of a named spokesman, and not even one of the protagonists. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And just FWIW, a couple of IPs keep removing the one ref in the article, claiming there are more neutral refs out there. I've had no success getting through to them that they need to actually add their prefered refs, not just remove the one they don't like.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * was doing the same in December 2008, with much the same edit summaries, too. Whilst I haven't (as already noted) been able to confirm the assertion that such sources exist, and whilst the editor without an account (whom it is pretty apparent is one person) hasn't presented the sources that xe claims exist, xe does have a very good point about this article being a coatrack based upon a source with a clear agenda, and not a biography of this person's life and works in any way. Uncle G (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Very weak, because there really are a ton of hits on this guy, on Gnews, and a respectable number in Gbooks and Gscholar as well. That said, most of these really are incidental - he was the chief DOJ spokesman, prior to which he was a major spokesman for Homeland Security, so he gets quoted in his official capacity a lot. Despite wading through the first couple of dozen hits, though, I agree w/ Fabrictramp - aside from the Cummins article and corresponding fallout, there seems to be nothing about him, as opposed to incidental mentions. Ray  Talk 01:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The GW Bush DOJ was involved is so many controversial issues involving the press that I think its press spokesman is notable enough. He has a LinkedIn page that cofirms some of the basic facts in the article, e.g. education. --agr (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Fabrictramp. DoJ issues should be discussed elsewhere; this bio isn't necessary. Rd232 talk 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I did a bit of work on the article. Its hard to find the non-trivial references to him because there are SO MANY references to him as a spokesman, but some do seem to exist, and enough to be notable.--Milowent (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, here's another article very negative about the guy in Harper's magazine. I didn't add it, but its just more evidence of notability.--Milowent (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with the original nomination, but Milowent has done a fine job of ferretting out sufficient sources showing notability to make deletion inappropriate. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.