Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel


 * 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 redirect. The history remains and any content can be merged in by any editor through the normal processes. Chick Bowen 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is the descriptionof a minor US political office. Per WP:BIO this is an appointed ad-hoc office that is not in the Constitution, is not elected or senate-confirmed. Most of google hits are for invites and by-lines. Simply not more notable than the President's butler or the Chief of Staff's chief of staff. This doesn't say a person holding this position can't be notable, just that on its own, the position is not notable. Mbisanz (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States (I think that's the relevent article). Generally, official titles, positions, terms, etc. that are not notable on their own but singularly notable as part of something bigger that is notable, should be redirects to that larger concept. --W.marsh 06:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per W.marsh. This position is subordinate to the Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel, from what I can tell (our own EOP article says it's a "third level" position, less prestigious than a Deputy Assistant), and is well down the salary list, beneath many deputy assistants. About the only thing notable about either position is that several people who have held it have later held more important jobs. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Without imputing bad faith on anyone's part, I believe this article was created by the editor mainly to help build a case for notability for his/her article on Eric Motley, DePRODDED by the editor without comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article I will be getting to later. I just need to look up the individual in greater detail. Mbisanz (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my attitude is not so much that I want to build a case for notability in such instances by starting a new article. In borderline cases, I don't make snap judgments about an article; I say, "Create 'em all and let the deletionists sort them out." I also view the template as just someone prodding me to add a reference or something to take care of some verifiability issues or whatnot. Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but the PROD notice does ask that you offer an explanation in either the edit summary or Talk page when removing it, and if you've cared enough to create an article I should think you would welcome the chance to explain why you think it's worth retaining. It is requested, at any rate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some users use PROD and AFD to push for sources, I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid that sort of thing, since a deletor should at least make sure they can't find a reason to keep the article. I'm stilling working on the Eric Motley issue.  I want to see how exactly he gained his various public offices, since Sarsaparilla is an experienced editor who I doubt would push a COI issue. Mbisanz (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it was because of his ties to the Republicans (the spoils system) but let me research... Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that this is an issue for you two. Of course it's a partisan appointment. It would be in any administration. That in itself doesn't discredit Motley, not for me, anyways. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the story of his appointment is at the end of this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061001040_5.html Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect per W.marsh, but the closing admin should be sure to move the quote/citation, which is truly unique. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (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.