Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Teufel III


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Teufel III

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Has never held a notable political position; has never been in a position requiring Senate confirmation; lengthy biography is entirely WP:SYN and WP:PRIMARY plus one news piece repeating a press-release, and a Frankenstein mess of non-notable glancing press references. I'm also nominating the related non-notable Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security article: this is too far down the government food-chain to be encyclopedic. Teufel's replacement has sat in the office for a year without anyone bothering to create an article for her. THF (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep There are some problems with the article, but I think he's likely notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.  AniMate   07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

P.O.F.D. (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seriously? The office was the first statutorily created privacy officer position in the federal government. The office is the largest in the federal government, and one of the largest privacy offices globally.  The officeholder testified before Congress several times and served was part of the High Level Contact Group, a joint US/EU effort on trans-atlantic exchanges of personal data.  If the entry is a "Frankenstein mess", it should be cleaned up and if his successor doesn't have a page create one!  Is server memory so expensive that entries like this one and Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security don't have a place?


 * Comment. I don't see any evidence that anything you've mentioned connotes notability. On the contrary, the very lack of any significant press coverage of the office and of its occupants demonstrates that this is exactly the sort of mid-level bureaucratic position that does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.  United States Principal Deputy Solicitor Generals are far more important, for example. THF (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I see only one reference which is an independent and reliable source with significant coverage, noting his lack of qualifications for the office he was appointed to at Homeland Security. The article reads like it is his resumé, and the other references are press releases, directory listings or routine announcements. The office he held does not in itself rise to the level of "automatic notability" such as being a cabinet member or a legislator. Just one more mid-level bureaucrat. Edison (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certainly no inherent notability in the position. There is not significant coverage either. Essentially agree with Edison above. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The DHS Privacy Officer was the first statutorily mandated privacy office in the federal government and the officer reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Subsequent to its establishment, Congress has required privacy officers at all major agencies, first through a 2005 appropriations act and later in the 2007 9/11 Commission Report Act.  The officer is one of two US government officials given observer status at the annual international data protection commissioner/privacy officer's conference. The office is the largest and most advanced privacy office in the federal government and is the standard by which others are judged.  GAO reports on Executive Branch privacy have frequently used the DHS privacy office as a benchmark to compare other agency privacy offices.  In contrast, whatever one thinks of the principal deputy solicitor general, that position is not a statutory position (although 18 USC 3742 does reference "a deputy solicitor general") and that position does not report to the Attorney General.  As for Teufel, his tenure was during the Bush Administration and the War on Terror. He was criticized early in the position by the San Francisco Chronicle and the annual reports of his office were the subject of Congressional and advocacy group scrutiny over alleged delays in their release and concern over Administration interference with the office's objectivity and whistle-blower status.  This concern resulted in an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel and coverage in the New York Times.  His time in office was noted by Congressional testimony on a number of high-profile issues, including the use of spy satellites for law enforcement purposes within the U.S.; privacy impact assessments on matters such as fusion centers, EINSTEIN 2 intrusion detection system, REAL ID regulations, and the Automated Targeting System (passenger name record data); and the elimination of a backlog of over 200 system of records notices.  If the office and officeholder do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia, one must assume that many others listed in the category "United States Department of Homeland Security officials" will also be up for deletion.  Rather than discuss whether to delete an entry that has been up on Wikipedia for 3 1/2 years, time should be spent editing it to get it into shape.P.O.F.D. (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete. I only see one independent reliable news article, and the article's entire premise is that the person is not notable.-- Pink Bull  21:24, 17 March 2010 (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.