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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Abramson (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)

Non-notable real estate consultant and federal government political appointee. Article presently includes 12 linked sources, none of which are independent, reliable sources per WP:RS for purposes of establishing notability. The specific notability guideline of WP:NPOL does not seem to apply, and the subject does not satisfy it in any event. Several of the article's linked sources are now dead links. That having been said, none of the sources appear to be media publications of general circulation, or other secondary sources, such as are normally used to establish notability pursuant to the general guidelines of WP:GNG. All sources appear to be primary, not secondary sources: government documents, government or organizational websites with which the subject had some association, and, of course, the last two "sources" are Wikipedia articles about the federal organization to which the subject was appointed. I'm not sure how this article survived the first AfD in 2009 (apparently there were some procedural "fairness" issues related to a PROD), but I see nothing here that merits the inclusion of this subject as a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a resume bank or a memorial to obscure government appointees. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles Abramson was nominated to serve as a commissioner for NCLIS by President Clinton and his appointment was confirmed by the US Senate. As such, he is among a relatively exclusive group of individuals who have been nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate for service as a federal official. Please let me know if you have further questions. JudithRussell User:JudithRussell, (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC) -- signature added manually[reply]

• Furthermore, this entry documents the history of NCLIS, a small, but important, agency of the federal government. Commissioners developed policy recommendations for action by the White House and Congress so understanding who served as commissioners informs an understanding of the commissions actions. Just recently, a 2000 report on the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was reviewed and recited in reference to a legislative initiative to sunset that agency, so the work of NCLIS is still relevant. JudithRussell User:JudithRussell, (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC) -- signature added manually[reply]

• Comment - Judith, the issue in this discussion is not the significance or importance of NCLIS. There is already a Wikipedia article on point regarding the agency: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. The issue in this discussion is whether Charles E. Abramson, as a former political appointee to the NCLIS advisory board, is a suitable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. The first step of our analysis will be determining whether Charles Abramson is "notable" in accordance with our general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, and our specific notability guidelines governing the biographies of persons per WP:BIO. I urge you to review these policies and guidelines linked above. In brief, they require that the notability for any person be documented with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:RS, and those sources must be secondary, not primary sources, that are independent of the subject. In this case, that means government documents and government agency websites cannot be used to demonstrate Charles Abramson's notability. Significant coverage of the subject in published sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, online news sources, -- or even the Helena, Montana Independent Record -- do count. Moreover, the coverage must be significant, not trivial; a one-sentence mention in the Post doesn't cut it, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I think the guidelines for NPOL are too unclear on this matter. In fact, I think those guidelines fail to deal with enough. What exactly are "national" offices held by politicians? Clearly in the US all cabinet positions apply, but what other positions? Ambassadorships evidently are not international offices, but are they national ones? I think we need a standard lower than every position nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, and the NCLIS does not seem to be notable enough to merit articles on all its members, at least if we lack reliable, secondary sources on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Johnpacklambert: WP:NPOL is poorly written, but I think it was intended to extend a presumption of notability to so-called "subcabinet" political appointees, like an Assistant Undersecretary of State for Middle Eastern Affairs, etc., not a political appointee to some esoteric library advisory board. There are literally hundreds of these types of presidential appointments, still subject to senate confirmation, and, for Wikipedia purposes, they should be subject to the full WP:GNG analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• An example of a person who it was written to cover is James Moyle, although his position as Assitant Secretary of the Treasury is not even near the low end. Plus considering there have been two biographies of him written (one by John Henry Evans and Gordon B. Hinckley, the other I don't remember exactly who wrote it), he passes the basic "has a biography on him" criteria, which is about the minimum needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the agency has an article does not mean that every single individual who was ever appointed to it automatically qualifies for their own separate biography — notability is not inherited, so his own independent notability, as a topic in his own right, would need to be demonstrated through the use of reliable sources that are specifically about him. That's not what's present here, however; virtually all of the listed sources are primary ones which cannot confer notability. I would be comfortable accepting the NCLIS as a sufficient claim of notability if good, reliable sources were present, but it's not a role that confers an automatic presumption of notability on a person in the absence of those reliable sources — it's a role where if he doesn't pass WP:GNG on his own steam, then unfortunately he just doesn't get to have an article. So delete if the sourcing doesn't see a serious upgrade by close. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find any reliable sources to establish the notability of this individual, so fails WP:GNG and most certainly WP:NPOL.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (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.