Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tod Wall


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Tod Wall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Serving as interim Oklahoma Secretary of State for a week month doesn't meet WP:NPOL. No refs in the article apart from his own LinkedIn profile, and the ones I find (such as verify the week-long interim period but say nothing else. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Actually a month rather than a week, as the start date is given as February 20 and the end date is given as March 27. But as much as we try to maintain articles about state-level cabinet officeholders, it's still a matter of whether they have reliable source coverage about their work in that role or not. If an article's most informative possible source is the subject's own LinkedIn, because there's no substantive coverage about him to be found, then we can't deem him an automatic keep just because his existence gets glancingly namechecked at the very end of one news article about his predecessor. People are not exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they technically held an WP:NPOL-passing position for a couple of weeks — even for an "inherently" notable position, a person still has to be sourceable to some evidence of media coverage about them. The sourceability is what makes the role an "inherently" notable one, and a person still loses the "inherence" of the position's notability if the sourceability isn't actually there. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I misread that; I've fixed the nom statement. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree, as an interim person, they have not gained the position in the normal sense, so not notable. Certainly not much RS here to substantiate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing notable here. It is just a person who got a government job. Has he done anything notable in the public eye or does he have any public coverage by media? Does not look like it.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2018 (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.