Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Baukol

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Baukol

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

Has some notability issues. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you are nominating the article you created for deletion? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes sir! I created many recent US government biographies, and this one seems to warrant deletion, given that Andy Baukol doesn't seem to hold any terribly notable position. Ethanbas ^(talk) 20:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. If there's not enough notability for an entry, why would you create it in the first place? Are you going to delete other entries that might be AFD, like Dysejaculation or Ariel Merari? Personally, I would never create a page that I didn't think deserved inclusion and I would immediately work it up that level. Bangabandhu (talk)

I thought Andy Baukol was notable, and I think now I was probably wrong. I don't support the deletion of those articles. Ethanbas ^(talk) 01:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For which of those articles did you receive compensation? Are you paid differently to create than to add to an entry? Bangabandhu (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find links on my user page which show which articles I create are paid. None of these biographies were paid for. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury briefly (assuming the full-time position is filled soon) isn't terribly notable and I haven't been able to find any coverage beyond brief mentions. It was hard enough finding a source to confirm his role. Mortee (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the creator themselves admits in a very honest nom, this individual fails notability guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why did User:Ethanbas remove the PROD, and, within the same minute, nominate the article for deletion? There seems to be some contradiction in his behavior that is yet to be explained. Riceissa (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The PROD was for lack of citations. After citations were added, I removed the now irrelevant PROD, and started this AfD because I wanted there to be a discussion on whether the low notability is enough to keep the article or not. Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethanbas acted correctly. {{BLP prod}} is about lack of sourcing, so the addition of even just one source to the article forces the prod to end regardless of what other content issues may still exist — so it's perfectly appropriate to take it to AFD if the core notability issue is still in question. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly in theory we don't observe a notability distinction between temporary "interim" or "acting" holders of a political office and permanent duly elected or appointed ones — if we can source them properly, then we don't care if they held the role for twenty years or three weeks. But all we have for sourcing here is one set of primary source meeting minutes and two glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and that's just not good enough. For the record, I have also occasionally nominated my own prior work for deletion, usually because it was stuff which I created a decade ago under our old sourcing and notability rules, but which couldn't really be repaired to meet the current standards anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2017 (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.