- 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 no consensus due to lack of agreement over what the relevant notability guidelines are. Deryck C. 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob Saxton (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)
I see no more than the usual coverage for someone in his position as an administrator--some local news, a professional announcement or two, but no in-depth discussion. Besides, a large chunk of the article is not really about him anyway. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The article is basically not about the subject of the article, and the sources don't really make me confident that that can change. I'd support a redirect if there were an article for Mr. Saxton's position (Deputy Superintendent), but while there's an article for the Superintendent, there is none for the second-in-command (likely with good reason). So, delete. Non-notable.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Formal head of Oregon Public Schools is a sufficient post to merit encyclopedic biography. There are doubtlessly another layer of sources out their relating to Saxton's gubernatorial campaign of the not-too-distant past. Sufficient sources showing for a GNG pass. This is not an obscure office-dwelling bureaucrat in this state, but a recognized public figure. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't see that at all. If this satisfies the GNG, then every single superintendent of every school system in the US is notable, since all of them (including ours) will have been mentioned or discussed in three articles in the local paper. That being the head of such a school system carries inherent notability is not, as far as I know, established. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the counter-argument is that this gentleman is the head of a state school system. This doesn't necessarily translate to making every superintendent of an individual district in the country notable. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure I disagree -- I misunderstood his role to be second-in-command when I voiced my delete opinion, when in fact he is the essential head of public schooling for the entire state of Oregon (subservient to the Governor). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't see that at all. If this satisfies the GNG, then every single superintendent of every school system in the US is notable, since all of them (including ours) will have been mentioned or discussed in three articles in the local paper. That being the head of such a school system carries inherent notability is not, as far as I know, established. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing my vote to keep. I misread the nature of his position initially. As the head of a state education agency, there is ample precedent that roles of this level imply notability, and WP:POLITICIAN does allow for positions of state-level prominence. Given that the position was just granted to Mr. Saxton a couple of weeks ago, it stands to reason that coverage is only going to develop. I think the article needs a fairly significant rewrite to focus more specifically on its actual subject and less on the restructuring that led to the creation of his position, but as a prominent state-level politician in charge of a large public school system I think notability is present. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. You have to be more than a senior civil servant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument, & if the two New Yorkers are really notable, they surely shouldn't be categorized as "academics". Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "senior civil servant," I say head of an entire state's public education system. Semantics, I guess, but I note again that WP:POLITICIAN specifically says that holders of "statewide" office are almost certainly notable. The existing sources in the article represent major coverage of his selection for the position. Additionally, if you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it points out that there are perfectly valid ways to use analogy in making an argument ("the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes") . That essay is not a blanket rebuttal of analogy, despite the unfortunate fact that it's often used as such. By pointing to our other coverage of statewide public education system leaders, I am illustrating other examples of similar articles that, in line with WP:POLITICIAN, constitute coverage of holders of statewide office. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:POLITICIAN ("Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office") He is head of the school system of the state of Oregon. The position was simply changed from an elected one to an appointed one this year. Subject has enough reliable coverage anyway, though I do agree that some of the content should be moved to the Oregon Superintendent of Public Instruction article. --Esprqii (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2012 (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.