Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas A. Jeffress


 * 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) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas A. Jeffress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No longer associated with Washington, DC or Republicans. Not noteworthy Njeffress (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, have reinstated text that was removed (actually a page blank), by so that editors may consider the article with regards to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, Hi, please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The position of Executive Director of a national political party is usually deleted per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The leader of the Republican Party would be the Chair, not the Executive Director. Enos733 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having been the executive director of a local chapter of a national political party, even if it's the local chapter in the capital city, is not in and of itself a valid claim of standalone notability — and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to claim WP:GNG. I note that the nominator appears to be the subject himself — and was also the creator of the article, in defiance of our conflict of interest rules — so I will note that the deletion rationale provided was not a valid one as (a) notability is not temporary (i.e. a person who was notable because of a public role they held does not lose that notability just because they leave the role later on), and (b) our content policies, not the subject's own wishes, determine whether the article stays or goes. But I can't argue for a keep on that basis. This is not an article about a person who was formerly notable enough for an article but isn't anymore — it's an article about a person who never met our inclusion standards to begin with. All of that said, WP:BIODEL does also come into play here, as an article about a low-profile individual who has personally requested deletion, but that remains secondary to the fact that this article should never have been created in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2016 (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.