Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas D. Everett


 * 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) 07:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas D. Everett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established. Not high enough in hierarchy to be automatically notable. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC, although there are other people with the same name. Not much media coverage. Another editor tagged this for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but it isn't, since U.S. federal government publications are in the public domain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being executive director of the US Federal Highway Administration is certainly a role that could get a person into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, but it is not such an "inherently" notable role that he would be exempted from having to have any good sources just because he exists. But two of the four references here are primary sources which do not count as support for notability at all — and the other two are brief glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him. The inclusion test for people like this is not just the ability to verify that he has been named in newspaper articles once or twice — it is whether he has been the subject of enough coverage to clear GNG, and there's no evidence here that he has. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Bearcat. Fails WP:GNG plain and simple. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2019 (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.