Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigham McCown


 * 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, with the weight of argument perhaps leaning slightly to keep.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Brigham McCown

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like a non-notable bio to me, and I'm not sure it even claims notability. I'm listing it here because I don't know if Deputy Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) at the U.S. Department of Transportation is a notable position (sure doesn't sound like one to me, but what do I know...). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete I dont think the position itself is notable and there's no articles about him to give notability Corpx (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added some references. He still seems to be quoted by Texas newspapers and broadcasters about road safety and hazardous materials, even though he no longer works for the government. It would be helpful to have more details about controversial policies that he had a part in developing and implementing. --Eastmain (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, barely. I don't know the person or the position, but it does seem to barely conform to regs.Sallicio (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
 * Delete - none of the references demonstrate notability. A quick Google search did not find anything notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.BWH76 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain. This isn't something I would lose sleep over either way, but I feel that this now passes muster, barely, as revised.  RFerreira (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (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.