Matthew Turpin : The article uses a number of primary sources , and none of the others meet WP:SIGCOV -- they're all brief quotes or interviews with the subject.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I fully agree - I honestly have absolutely no idea why this is featured on the front page.  Alfolfin ( talk ) 21:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page .  Please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating.  OfTheUsername ( talk ) 22:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct.  Had I seen this when this was nominated, I would have procedurally closed this AfD as you cannot nominate an article while it is linked from the main page.  I did see this 12 minutes for it rotated off the main page, and it was then easier to pull the DYk hook then to close this AfD.  Now that the article is no longer of the main page, the speedy keep is moot.  Schwede 66 00:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Schwede66 : I thought that was the case!  However, I couldn't find the policy or guideline that supported it so I assumed my memory was off (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy ).  If that was incorrect, I apologize.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE .  Schwede 66 08:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Bilateral relations , Military ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 23:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - after it's off the main page.   The big tip-off should have been the vagueness of the wording of his military career.  It didn't say he actually accomplished any rank or anything else while in the service.  And his views on anything are not notable.  DYK criteria ( WP:DYKG ) is not set up to catch something like this.  Notability ( WP:POLITICIAN ) in general should have caught this, but it didn't.   Cleverly worded to make him sound important, but "Security analyst, former U.S. defense official" are vague.  His military career doesn't mention any rank or position of note.  — Maile ( talk ) 23:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When this was created I assumed notability would be met as he had served as a Director at the U.S. National Security Council and senior advisor to a U.S. Secretary of Commerce.  However, if the sources cited/available would not be sufficient to establish WP:SIGCOV, I support the deletion.  W9793 ( talk ) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Poorly sourced, but he’s a prominent figure on the think-tank / govt foreign policy scene.  It’s not plausible to me that sources don’t exist to establish his notability.  Llajwa ( talk ) 00:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Llajwa : Can you give any examples of those sources?  I've looked quite hard and haven't come away with anything useful.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Passes GNG from sourcing showing in the footnotes.  Carrite ( talk ) 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (weak): I agree with the nom that this does not meet BASIC due to primary problems, but I think the level of sources for the article make a case for NACADEMIC#7, "The person has made substantial impact (Hoover, Brookings, AEI) outside academia (Politico, CBS, The Hill, ESPN) in their academic capacity."  The article does need cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk 21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue : Y'know, I didn't think to weigh this bio against NACADEMIC!  Looking at the specific criteria notes , I'm not sure they are "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (my emphasis).  Their 2020s quotes were sought out because of their 2010s government positions, not because they were briefly a professor in the mid-2000s (with only a master's degree?).  That said, I can definitely see how reasonable people could disagree on that, and the case for notability is closer than I thought it was when I was nominating this for deletion.  Thanks for raising the point!  Best, Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:29, 4 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep