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.
Obscure state officeholder with no viable assertion of notability.
Orange Mike |
Talk 03:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - Doesn't seem to pass
WP:POLITICIAN, either as Sec. of WisDOT or with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Definitely a real person, but does not seem a person of much note. (by comparison, the
current secretary was a state legislator and so passes WP:POLITICIAN).
Chris857 (
talk) 04:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Rereading WP:POLITICIAN, and thinking of him as a cabinet member, he probably does pass. Neutral.
Chris857 (
talk) 01:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Senior civil servant heading a major state department. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ymblanter (
talk) 08:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)reply
explanation - there is a clear-cut consensus at
WP:POLITICIAN that national and state/provincial legislators are inherently notable. There is, at present, no such consensus for state/provincial cabinet officials in political entities where such offices are not (indeed, cannot, in many cases) be held by legislators. That is the rationale behind my support for deletion. Per
WP:NOTINHERITED, I see no substantive evidence for notability (and I live in his state). Necrothesp: the concept of "senior civil servant" does not really apply to a situation like this; Thompson's just another run-of-the-mill political appointee at the state level, of no particular note and with a very low profile. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep If members of a state legislature are notable (which is the current consensus), than people who have held two top state-wide cabinet level positions are even more clearly notable. There is a problem that we actually have very spotty coverage of these people, but that is no reason to abandon the articles we do have.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep, this is hardly obscure, state level cabinet role is definitely notable. --
Soman (
talk) 20:45, 23 February 2014 (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.