Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Yunaska


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Yunaska

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He is definitely failing WP:GNG. Also being a chief of staff, not even leading a suboffice for department, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN indeed and general WP:NBIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 09:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I am not convinced if he was the head of the sub-department he would be notable, but being the chief of staff in the department clearly not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being chief of staff in a government department is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, and he does not inherit notability just for being the brother-in-law of Donald Trump's son either — but this isn't referenced to anything like enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG. Of the six sources shown here, three are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a "hot bachelors" fluffball on a tabloid news show that isn't a reliable source, and the only two that are actually about him (one of which is of questionable reliability as well) fail to demonstrate any sustained RS attention outside of a one-day blip of notability for a single event. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2017 (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.