Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winslow Sargeant (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep.  — fetch ·  comms   00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Winslow Sargeant
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability concerns. Was subject of an AFD discussion cut short by being speedy deleted G5 (as creation of banned user), then restored. Since previous AFD seems to have been heading for delete, a properly concluded debate seems called for. Rd232 talk 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. He had received some substantial coverage even before his appointment by Obama; for example and . Ucucha 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Deleting the article in the middle of an AFD for a G5 claim was the mistake.Subject looks notable to me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion either way, but I feel the process left the article in a bit of a limbo "what does the community really think" situation. Rd232 talk 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Perhaps I should have reopened the previous AFD when I restored the article—not sure what the established procedure is, or even if there is one. Ucucha 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Such deletions in the middle of AFD discussions are to my knowledge not normal. Lets press on with what we have. As I know G5 deletions are very rare and not a good idea for articles that are not clear vandalism. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that was the problem. One particular user G5-tagged very enthusiastically, and closed open AFDs. I'm sure they thought it was for the best. (But then the tagged articles did actually get deleted by some admin.) Rd232 talk 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Close call, but the individual is clearly not notable per WP:N. The whole recess appointment thing is WP:BLP1E.  It's very unlikely that we could actually fill an article with notable information about this person.  This would be a permastub article that would only serve as a glorified resume.    Snotty Wong   speak 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be a distinguished engineer. For example, Bloomberg says "He has been named a Kauffman Fellow – Class 11 and has received the inaugural 2002 Wisconsin Distinguished Young Alumni Award and was the 2003 Outstanding Engineering Alumni Awardee from Northeastern University.". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The alumni awards are not that big a contribution to notability. Kauffman Fellowship is slightly more (awarded by Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation), but I find no GNews coverage of the Fellowship apart from mentions in press release-type things about people who had one. As with the previous AFD, I'm neutral; to !vote keep I'd have to see something better than the current sourcing, which is BLP1E sources relating to his appointment plus the Wisconsin Tech News. Rd232 talk 11:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- meets WP:N, and the nom seems to be a retaliatory strike in furtherance of a dispute between editors. Tsk. Minor4th  07:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This user has not contributed to any AFDs since 23 June, and has now opposed every one of my recent AFDs. There is no dispute between me and either the account which created the article or the banned user the account was a sock of. There is, however, a difference of opinion between me and Minor4th on matters of climate change. Rd232 talk 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've said several times that I'm now neutral on keep/delete on this one. Re-nomination was because the previous AFD was cut short and the article CSD#G5 speedy deleted, and then restored, requiring a conclusion of the community discussion on the merits of the article. Rd232 talk 17:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I did a search of reliable sources and found a few dozen about this subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool - would you stick them in the article or at least the talk page please? (The ones that aren't about his appointment particularly, since that's BLP1E territory and well-enough covered.) Rd232 talk 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How I wish I could! Unfortunately, I can't.  But I can e-mail you the link. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right... I had a look at your email, I didn't see anything absolutely essential to add. Never mind, eh. Rd232 talk 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep  especially on the basis of the detailed discussion in the WSJ column  This does not appear to have been a routine appointment.    DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 7 September 2010 (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.