Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Thompson (Wisconsin)


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles H. Thompson (Wisconsin)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obscure state officeholder with no viable assertion of notability. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN, either as Sec. of WisDOT or with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Definitely a real person, but does not seem a person of much note. (by comparison, the current secretary was a state legislator and so passes WP:POLITICIAN). Chris857 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rereading WP:POLITICIAN, and thinking of him as a cabinet member, he probably does pass. Neutral. Chris857 (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Senior civil servant heading a major state department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * explanation - there is a clear-cut consensus at WP:POLITICIAN that national and state/provincial legislators are inherently notable. There is, at present, no such consensus for state/provincial cabinet officials in political entities where such offices are not (indeed, cannot, in many cases) be held by legislators. That is the rationale behind my support for deletion. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, I see no substantive evidence for notability (and I live in his state). Necrothesp: the concept of "senior civil servant" does not really apply to a situation like this; Thompson's just another run-of-the-mill political appointee at the state level, of no particular note and with a very low profile. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Wisconsin Department of Transportation is a major cabinet-level statewide office - NOT obscure. Easily passes WP:POLITICIAN point #1. I don't understand how this is being discussed. And per unanimous keeps at Articles for deletion/Charles H. Thompson (besides the same nominator).  Royal  broil  03:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep If members of a state legislature are notable (which is the current consensus), than people who have held two top state-wide cabinet level positions are even more clearly notable. There is a problem that we actually have very spotty coverage of these people, but that is no reason to abandon the articles we do have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is hardly obscure, state level cabinet role is definitely notable. --Soman (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2014 (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.