Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Heusser


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Roger Heusser

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Under supported biography of a retired chemist and civil servant, written by a family member. I cannot find sufficient source material either to establish that the subject meets the general notability guideline or to mount a rewrite. Fails Verifiability and the lack of sources means the problem is not remediable. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

... So I added sources. If a federal executive who testified before congress (including a link to the congressional record) regarding the reasons for entering the first gulf war isn't good enough for you, I dunno what to say. Due to the nature of his role, he obviously did not have a high profile (deputy director, office of classification, security affairs, US Department of Energy) but a trivial google search should indicate this information is factual, and I've sourced it as much as I could. Mheusser (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheusser (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - As you are a person with a close personal connection to the subject of the article, I would ask that avoid participating in this deletion discussion and restrict your editing of the article within the limitations set out at Conflict of interest.


 * In addition, the references you added constitute passing mentions only and do not amount to "significant coverage" -- Rrburke (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COI advises those with a conflict of interest to "avoid OR exercise great caution" [emphasis is mine] when participating in Afd discussions. Mheusser has made his conflict of interest known and is applying a good faith effort to abide by Wikipedia rules, so I do not object to him contributing to this Afd discussion if he has information to offer that might help us. Location (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will stop participating in the discussion, and only point out that since this discussion started, I have been adding sources only, something specifically allowed under COI guidelines. Mheusser (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - And you're encouraged continue doing so in order to help demonstrate the subject's notability and reduce the chances that the article will be deleted. Please see Notability and Notability (people) to better understand what criteria are used to evaluate notability, and Identifying reliable sources to see what kinds of sources are preferred. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are sufficient to show notability, especially --I recognize it is not independent and prepared by his organization, but I think it is none the less reliable as a government agency. In addition there are about 20 Google news references. at  .    DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 20? I count zero. 160.39.213.200 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, DGG's link didn't work for me either. Try . — Huntster (t @ c) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, the link was fine. But none of the articles seem to be actual references about this guy, merely quoting him. 160.39.213.200 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I have several problems with this article. The first is notability. He appears to have been a lifelong, mid-level bureaucrat in the federal government, never holding any position that provides AUTOMATIC notability. And he does not appear to have met the WP:GNG requirement for general notability, by receiving significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. (Not every bureaucrat is notable, even if they testify before congress, and even if their colleagues say nice things about them when they retire. They may do good and important work, but if that work does not get REPORTED by independent reliable sources, it does not create notability under Wikipedia's standards.) Moreover, the sources provided do not support the claims in the article. I could find no verification that he was ever "Director, Division of Nuclear Materials", the highest-level position claimed for him. The source cited for that claim, reference 10, refers to him as the "former Director of the Office of Declassification" (a claim the article does not make; it refers to him as the Deputy Director of said office), and it says nothing about being the Director of the Division of Nuclear Materials. All in all, a person who does not cross the notability threshold, and an article whose sources do not confirm the claims made. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Reference 1 refers to him as the "retired Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear and National Security Information," again a title which is not attributed to him in the article. Was that what the author meant by calling him "Director, Division of Nuclear Materials"? I would encourage the article's author, MHeusser, to try to clarify and source what positions he actually held. (And yes, you are allowed to do that!) --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete gnews reveals articles that quote him but there is hardly anything about him as a person. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 29 March 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.