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. The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems. Nobody argues that the man has held a position for which notability is presumed by guideline. Sandstein 08:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Was moved to draft, where it was declined before being moved back to mainspace by the article's SPA creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable aid worker. One of the UN's most skilled operators, he's a "close confidant" of António Guterres himself. Ultra progressive for a married man of his age, though he stood by the good secretary general when SJWs were attacking him over George Floyd. Easily gets enough coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing how WP:GNG is met here. (That Al Jazeera article mentions him twice in passing.) Please ping me if other sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deputy head and acting head of a significant agency of the UN. Clearly enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per nom and SportingFlyer, i too do not see GNG being met or WP:SIGCOV fulfilled. Furthermore, when editors !vote a keep and make comments such as “they should be notable” “are notable” “obviously notable” or “there are enough sources establish notability” I believe they should be able to provide to the AFD the said sources that substantiates their claims and explain how the sources are eligible within the confines of GNG, Are the sources independent of the subject? Do the sources contain significant coverage? I say this generally and do not have any specific editor in mind whilst typing this. Celestina007 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep former CG of what is probably the most politically contentious UN programme at the point in time where the US was indicating that it would withdraw funding and was engulfed in a financial scandal. UCS, please. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:51, 24 May 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.