From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Nomination Withdrawn. Coverage around his new role as the FAA administrator makes for a clear definition of being notable. (non-admin closure) scope_creep Talk 09:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Phil Washington

Phil Washington (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Routine coverage, e.g. appointement notices, none of it secondary. scope_creep Talk 14:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

You have a blog reference here, a confirmation of being tapped by Biden, a notice of employement, a confirmation of employment. All of it, low-quality dross, absolute low-quality junk references. The confirmation is slightly better quality but it another routine notice. None of it is secondary. scope_creep Talk 11:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
This multi-page article in the LA Times [5] is not "low-quality dross, absolute low-quality junk". It is in-depth significant coverage. Jacona ( talk) 11:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
That is routine annoucement of employment and the majority of the article isn't about it. That is a perenial problem with articles of this type; folk at folk present these notices as though they are genuine secondary sources when they are not and there is rough consensus around that fact, that they are not. They are routine coverage. They're not exactly primary but they not secondary either. What they are is standard notice no analysis. scope_creep Talk 12:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:36, 6 June 2022 (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.