Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Warren


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wade Warren

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod by user:John from Idegon, deprodded by anon. I concur that this seems to fail WP:NBIO, and the red flag of SPA involvement, suggesting potential paid for or vanity angle, does not help. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being the acting holder of a government civil service role is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have any reliable sources — but between the three footnotes and the three links that are being contextlessly linkfarmed below them, five of those six are primary sources (press releases, directory entries, the USAID's own self-published website about itself) which are not support for notability at all, and the only one that is a reliable source is a local interest magazine covering him in the not inherently notable context of joining a consulting firm after his most potentially notable job had ended, which means it's not enough to get him over the bar all by itself as the only non-primary source in play. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can show evidence of much more reliable source coverage about him than I've been able to find, but the sourcing present here is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see just enough biographical material around the internet to establish notability and justify retaining the article. My recent edits have, at least partially, mitigated the problems with sources mentioned above. I would note that while these are trade publications they do have a reputation for reliability and fact-checking.182.239.82.234 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the sources added: seems like a rewritten press release by a niche portal, WP:INTERVIEW by a niche portal, 100% press release, mention in passing. I still thinks he fails WP:SIGCOV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources I see on the internet do not rise to the level of notability. Rockphed (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Rockphed, may I suggest you clarify your vote? It is customary to use terms like delete, keep, merge or redirect. Latin proverbs are hard for a closing admin to quantify :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:58, 19 September 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.