Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn H. Becraft

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 redirect to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn H. Becraft

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO: Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) is not a particularly high-profile position, and the press doesn't pay much attention. (There are a number of articles about other officeholders, but let's run these two up the flagpole first and see if anybody salutes.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given every other holder of this office has an article I see little to be gained in deleting articles on two of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, these are a couple of test cases. Some of the other officeholders went on to bigger and better things, some didn't, so a mass Afd didn't seem like a good idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The position is an inherently notable one in my opinion. It is really only when you start getting deep into the small bureaus and agencies and sub-departments that no one's ever heard of where notability is not guaranteed via WP:NPOL; manpower is an important department within a military branch. You kind of shot yourself in the face when you jointly nominated Becraft and Morehouse. As Morehouse only served in an acting capacity and has even fewer coverage, I would be very open to a deletion discussion on Morehouse, as well as every other acting holder of this office and other offices (separate noms though please). However, Becraft is fine for the reasons I mentioned above. There are definitely better choices for a test run imo. Curbon7 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is a mid-level bureaucratic office inherently notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend, like I said it's not really mid-level. Deputy assistant secretaries are mid-level and certainly not inherent, but assistant secs seem generally fine imo. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the sourcing that supports your claim? The Celebrate Freedom profile is the only reliable, independent one so far. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean we're talking about WP:NPOL applicability, so existing sourcing isn't really in the conversation. Whether or not ministers and bureaucrats count under NPOL has been a gray area since forever, and it probably won't be resolved until there is an amendment of WP:NBIO this way or that way. Curbon7 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political office, but a bureaucratic one, so NPOL does not apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), albeit weakly with regard to Becraft. I don't see NPOL as being particularly relevant here: its first criterion is that the person be a politician (or judge!), and that isn't really met for an unelected bureaucratic official. There doesn't seem to be any way that Morehouse could pass the GNG: my search for sources comes up dry. Becraft presents a closer question, since there are lots of results in Newspapers.com and Proquest, but these seem to mainly consist of quotes and trivial mentions. I'm always glad to reconsider if some sort of in-depth coverage can be identified, but for now I'm thinking neither are notable. Redirecting to the office seems like a reasonable alternative to deletion, and in any event it's cheap. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) per Extraordinary Writ.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2021 (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.