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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 • (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Teri Takai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced, using one source, doesn't meet standard notability guidelines, not every Federal employee is notable to have a article regardless of positon. Not an elected offical, not presidentally appointed. Many directors of federal agencies do not have wikipedia pages, let alone CIO's. Posiiton doesn't automatically warrant notability. 0pen$0urce ( talk) 23:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep: article has more than one source and many more are available - see for example Information Week, GovTech, FedScoop, FCW, mobilefuture, Washington Post, etc. Meets Wp:GNG. Suggest nominator add WP:BEFORE to WP:BLPPROD on the reading list. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't appreciate the repeated implication that I didn't read the guidelines, advise you focus on content and be civil, yes there are artciles for those, but I'm also assuming good faith that you have read the 5 pillars. Don't take it personal that an article you authored notability is being questioned, again there is an article for that, but I didn't cite, should have to cause I am assuming good faith.-- 0pen$0urce ( talk) 17:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

AGF is all well and good, but the evidence is persuasive. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Lets divert attention back to the content, thank you-- 0pen$0urce ( talk) 21:10, 3 July 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, czar  ♔ 05:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - for all of the back-and-forth above, there wasn't actually any analysis of the sources put forward by Nikkimaria, nor the sources available already in the article. In my view, they are enough to substantiate the subject's notability against WP:GNG without needing to go further. But I will. Beyond the coverage, she was the CIO of one of the largest public sector organisations on the planet - as a public sector CIO that's about a close to the top of her field as you can get (woman or not). She was also acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration - a position we consider notable enough for its own article. That position was abolished in 2012 in favour of Takai's CIO position. Before that she was CIO of the State of California and a member of the Governor's Cabinet. Not notable? Really? St★lwart ¹¹¹ 07:02, 9 July 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.