Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Christopher Evans

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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Christopher Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches. The current three sources in the article are an Access Denied page to the subject's non-independent biography, an article by the subject, and a local article about him being appointed. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG per these sources found and added to the article [1][2]. These sources give sigcov and seem credible to pass for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source was already in the article, and both sources are routine coverage. Both sources are just announcements of what the subject did in in his career - being hired and forming his team. SL93 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being denied access to a source in not a proper reason for deleting an article. The source is still available in an archive (now added]. I find the coverage to be significant and dealing with more than routine about his career progression. Thincat (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thincat The access denied thing isn’t why it is a bad source, but rather that it isn’t independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in itself it doesn't contribute much, if anything, towards notability but it provides some sufficiently verified information. Taken as a whole there is enough adequate information for a stub BLP. Personally, I prefer AFD discussions to include only matters that are relevant to article deletion but I realise that some people are not so well aware of our standards or they regard discussions as adversarial rather than inquisitorial. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Both of the sources provided by Ednabrenze appear to contain multiple paragraphs of significant and independent coverage with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: right now, there is significant coverage, which is what we want. I don’t know what happened before this. In any case, the DEA had acting administrators for over six years, a scandal. Bearian (talk) 11:50, 12 July 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.