Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Grannis


 * 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 (only in my capacity as an editor, after deletion I'll be recreating as a redirect to United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

David Grannis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(A PROD, which had been seconded, was contested.) The subject has received a small amount of attention, but does not come near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are 9 references in the article. Eight of those are: two dead links; three sources that do not mention Grannis; a 54 page court document in a case between the American Civil Liberties Union and James R. Clapper, in which I can find no mention of Grannis (it is a scanned copy of a fairly long document, and is not searchable, so I may have missed a mention of him, but even if there is a mention then it must be a very minor mention, and the document certainly does not deal with Grannis to any substantial extent); a page on Dianne Feinstein's web page (so that it is not an independent source) which is not substantially about Grannis, and merely contains an announcement of Grannis's appointment as Feinstein's staff director; and a brief and utterly trivial conversation on Twitter. We are left with just one source which gives any significant mention of Grannis, namely an article in the Miami Herald, here. That is a news report on one incident, and on its own goes nowhere towards establishing notability in Wikipedia terms. A Google search produced nothing of any value in establishing notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no independent sources about Grannis - he's a spokesman, a functionary, not a political figure of any note. Some people hate him because he delivers the words of an organisation they hate. This is not his fault, and as reasons for having an article go, it's about as bad as they get. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Minimal merge or just redirect to United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There seem to be no third party sources that discuss this person directly to any depth, and so Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article devoted to him.  Wikipedia should not be writing the first biographies on living people, we cover what is already covered.  The content is not offensive, it may remain in the history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the talk page, you will see that some of the contents in the article's history are regarded as offensive by some editors, and at the very least it is controversial BLP content. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't appreciate some deeper contexts, but I don't see anything worthy of Revision_deletion. On the other hand, I don't see anything being particularly useful.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see anything qualifying for revision deletion either, or I would have revision deleted it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I am removing posts by a block-evading editor, together with replies I posted to them before I realised that the editor was evading a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sole purpose of this Article is to give supporters of Edward Snowden and opponents of the NSA a free shot at calling David Grannis a liar. Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for such attacks. JohnValeron (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I could see how an important Congressional staff member meets notability requirements, but I don't think this particular staffer does. I don't think there's any need for a re-direct either. Orser67 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This person is mentioned at United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (although without substantial content). Normally, a redirect to a page where the subject is explicitly named is welcome.  Of course, there is no "need", as someone searching for the name will find the search results topped by the target page.  However (particularly addressed to  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson", are we deleting so that the non-persuasive talk page objector can't simply reverse a redirect when you might not be looking anymore?  Would it help the redirect option if these sorts of redirects were indefinitely protected?  Some of the sources, such as this contain reasonable content, and the use of this source might reasonably be reused, and so I have a mild preference to keep the history available.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree that there is no evidence of notability. The connections to Snowden seem wholly unsupported. Kerrysg (talk) 14:09, 21 March 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.