Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Magaw

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. Nakon 00:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Magaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Government executive that really isn't notable for more than simply having a job. I'm sure he's a fine man, but the coverage I'm seeing is that he has a job and is a 28 year veteran of the Secret Service. There was some coverage when he got appointed to the position, but that died off fast. If that is considered coverage, then this could arguably be WP:BLP1E, with the event being his appointment to the job. Most of the rest that I find is mentions. It was prodded and almost deleted until an editor removed the prod with the reasoning that there is a source. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the PROD on the article was a Prod blp, placed because at that stage it had no references. Those are used to arrange deletion of BLPs which after seven days are still unreferenced. After this PROD-blp was placed, two reliable sources were added, so deletion for that reason was no longer appropriate. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that one source is a dead link and the other shows that he exists and has a job. It shouldn't have been removed and that ability to remove it for essentially nothing is why the prod is a worthless tool. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Plenty of PRODded articles get deleted, if the conditions apply; but deletions should be done by the book. A BLP-PROD no longer applies if there is "at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography", and that is why I did not delete this article. You are welcome to argue that he is not notable, but that is a separate question. (By the way, both references work for me). JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's a discussion for another venue. And yes, both sources are now working, which is why I removed the inline dead link note in the article last night. The "article" makes only a single statement....that he has a job. Yes, he has a job. Again, Prod's are useless. Might as well use the 7 days getting a deletion that will stick. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having a job is not notable, even if proven.--Rpclod (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2015 (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.