Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Charles


 * 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert B. Charles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is a naked self-promotion exercise about a living person whose career is not notable enough to merit a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.236.219.147 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 21:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 2.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: wikipedia is not LinkedIn. And the section: "Management style: Also known as a reform-minded manager, he effectively transformed a two-billion dollar bureau at State, between 2003 and 2005" -- what the what? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been around since 2004. notes connection with subject in change history. Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Subject is notable. The article should be kept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete – Agree with nominator. Google and ProQuest searches are not turning up in-depth coverage of the article subject in multiple reliable secondary sources. Article is also written in an inappropriately promotional tone. Citobun (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as passing my standards for lawyers. He clerked for a major court, served as ASOS, and was partner in a well-known law firm. Normal editing will cut out the cruft. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:06, 16 June 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.