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. Randykitty ( talk) 06:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Bruce D. Jette (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD challenged as "asserting notability", which is not in my view, a valid reason to remove a PROD since the claim was not that it didn't assert notability, but that he wasn't notable and that it was spam.Non-notable mid-level political appointee: sub-cabinet, so not inherently notable, and the rest of the coverage is just your standard PR that is normal with any appointment, and routine coverage that isn't in-depth to him, but is brief and discusses what he does in his official capacity. Additionally, notability really doesn't matter here as it is likely a terms of use violation as undeclared paid editing, meaning there is no right for it to even be on the encyclopedia and that additionally it is excluded under local policy: WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I was the one who removed the prod and I need to see some evidence that there is paid editing involved. Let's say, for the sake of argument that there is, it can be cleaned up because he is a notable figure. Definitely meets GNG with plenty of sources ranging from this NYT article to a Foreign Policy profile toa FedScoop artiicle, not to mention his Army biography. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Let's look at the sourcing you provided: the NYT article is quotes and contains no substantial coverage about him. Being quoted in the NYT is not indicative of notability. The next two are simply routine announcements of nominations for a sub-cabinet office. Foreign Policy is a better source than Fed Scoop, but I would count Fed Scoop on the level of typical trade mags, the difference being that it's industry is the federal government of the United States. Finally, you can't seriously think that his Army biography counts for notability: it isn't independent as it is produced by his employer. I have had multiple of those published by my employers over the years. I'm sure as hell not notable.
    Finally, the GNG doesn't matter as WP:N makes WP:NOTSPAM equal to the GNG, and something must pass both to get an article. This was created in violation of the TOU, the article history shows it clearly to be created for the intent of promotion, and it is simply a resume of a sub-cabinet official. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I wasn't counting his Army biography for the purposes of notability, perhaps that was a bit unclear, I was simply stating it provided biographical info. I really don't think NOTSPAM applies, the article as written looks like a typical politician bio. Jette is not just notable for his most recent post, he also received notability for inventing the packbot which saved lives in Iraq. There are more articles on him, for instance DefenseNews interview and this LA Times piece. As I've said before, any paid editing claims need to be substantiated, and the article can be cleaned up anyway. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 14:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
      • LA Times isn’t about him, but his invention. Interviews are primary sources and don’t establish notability. Cleaning up an article created in violation of our terms of use so they get more value out of it rather than deleting it actively harms this project. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete It is rarely called upon to do so, but occasionally, WP:NOT trumps WP:V; this is a classic example. As someone not a million miles away might say, please wait until someone with no COI decides [it's] notable and writes the article; although as the nom points out, the article subject is a middle-ranking politician, and the career trajectory would need to increase proportionately to pass WP:NPOL, as the coverage is currently a dearth of persistent or in-depth sourcing. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia / cheap sh*t room} 16:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There is no problem with in-depth sourcing. I have no conflict of interest here (and it's never been proven that there was paid editing FYI) and I could write the article, but that seems kinda ridiculous given the effort here already. He is also an inventor and businessman besides a politician, and there are definitely enough sources here to write a decent article. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 17:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment Eesh. There's plenty of sources available, but I don't see any which really grant notability. The best ones are WP:ROUTINE announcements of his promotion. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep as inventor of the PackBot. Bearian ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep User:TonyBallioni, Note what the Los Angeles Times article cited above actually says: [1] "Jette, who has a doctoral degree from MIT, became a legend in Afghanistan when he suggested that the Army use robots instead of soldiers to search caves for Taliban fighters.When commanders told him it would take months or years to build a robot program, Jette said he could do it in 45 days with off-the-shelf technology, and then did it in fewer."] This is WP:SIGCOV, however brief. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG and, basically, Bearian. Yes, he's a midrange political appointee, which often isn't enough. But he actually did something notable in that office, the packbot. CBS News That's a big enough deal to be worth an article. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep His position is not one that would automatically qualify him for an article, but the references seem to me to be adequate to meet GNG, documenting in high-level Reliable Sources several out-of-the-ordinary things he has done. BTW The article's history is a godawful mess - originally written by someone whom TonyBalioni blocked for undeclared paid editing, then completely rewritten by an IP who said they had been “tasked” to scrub the page and use his Department of the Army official bio; that version was actually a copyvio, being copy/pasted from several sources [2] [3], but no-one seems to have noticed that at the time. That rewrite was reversed, so what we now see is pretty much the Biografix version. Even if it was "commissioned spam" as described in the PROD rationale, I believe he meets our notability criteria. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

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.