Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Figueroa

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 of the debate was KEEP NTK 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Figueroa

person is not notable; only a passing news story about a government official who exposed himself to an under-aged girl. Dananderson 04:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or merge; slightly notable incident; possibly find a place for a mention of this together with the previous similar incident in a "Scandals" section of Department of Homeland Security. The government being the government, this section is likely to grow, anyway... Sandstein 05:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems noteworthy because of the absurdity of his incident. JIP | Talk 09:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the relevance of the incident to the position seems significant to me MLA 14:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, received significant amounts of press coverage. --Saforrest 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The combination of his job role and his conviction constitutes a claim to notoriety, IMO. Just zis Guy you know? 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to the nom: make a note to bring this back in six months when it has passed from the headlines and it can be quickly dispatched then. Conflation of encyclopedic value with press coverage is a well-established bias that cannot be overcome except by time. Eusebeus 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon? So we should just delete the Intel 80286 article because those processors are no longer being made? There's no reason why this should be deleted more likely a few months from now. Fact is, there has been press coverage of this at some point, which means that it's notable. This fact doesn't change over time. —Michiel Sikma, 05:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I hope that when I look into Wikipedia in 20 years, I will still find articles on Natalee Holloway, Kristen French, and Ghyslain Raza. There's certainly a lot worse "cruft" in WP than this. --Saforrest

• Keep for now, for reasons described above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep government officials being involved in even minor scandals should be notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim
• Keep because it received attention. It also is listed in Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies as one of the "major controversies", so most likely there are people who know more about this than I do who believe that this is indeed worthy of noting. —Michiel Sikma, 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. Not notable.--Tbeatty 05:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

_Fire! 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per, well, almost everybody. Notable public figure, substantial media coverage, etc. -Colin Kimbrell 06:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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.