Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. William Leonard


 * 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. --MuZemike 04:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

J. William Leonard

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable American civil servant Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Leonard is not in the civil service. He's a political appointee to a federal office, with substantial coverage in reliable sources   . Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? The article in the Denver Post is an editorial, the Daily Beast is a weblog, the article in the New York Times only states that he had that Office. The Federal Computer Week confirms that he was a public servant, not a political nominee. Night of the Big Wind  talk  20:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't have a WP:POLITICAL_APPOINTEE, but if you extrapolate WP:POLITICIAN and try and make a comparative judgement, he fails. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The topic appears to pass WP:GNG, however. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – I've found several reliable sources, see below for my !vote to keep this topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep 4 articles listed above by User:Alessandra Napolitano satisfy WP:GNG. The previous 2 delete comments baffle me. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Napolitano's references are solid. Add to them an LA Times article written by Leonard, and a National Endowment for Democracy appointment/bio (also reported by the Federation of American Scientists). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but the appointment/bio clearly state that he is hired, so he is not a politician or political nominee. Your sources make clear that he was a civil servant. Night of the Big Wind  talk  04:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. He easily qualifies under WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of notable independent coverage of his appointment. I don't doubt he'll do great work and become notable shortly, but right now he's not. Soupy sautoy (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – This topic appears to be quite notable, see below. Topic notability isn't limited to one aspect of a topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – This topic easily passes WP:GNG, per: NY Times article 1, NY Times article 2, NY Times article 3, Information in the National Security Archive, Coverage in Newsweek, Coverage in Federal Computer Week, Denver Post (editorial). Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment: I !voted delete above but have struck that. It looks to me like the subject is known for a single event, but it's still going and generating coverage after five years, so I'm not sure that counts. There's also the fact that there might be classified coverage of this that we don't have access to; and that I really don't understand US politics. So I'm not going to vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2011 (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.